Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Redcar Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING (ATTACKS, MEDITERRANEAN).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many piratical attacks have been made on British ships in the Mediterranean since 1st January, 1938, either by torpedo or by aerial bomb?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The steamship "Lake of Geneva" is reported to have been the object of an unsuccessful attack. Full statements in regard to the steamships "Endymion" and "Alcira" were made in the House on 7th February by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and by myself.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can we take it that there have been no other attacks except these three?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. There was one in connection with the air bombardment at Tarragona.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning the attack on the British steamer "Thorpe-ness," at Tarragona on 20th January, by aircraft under the command of General Franco?

Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 7th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Noel-Baker: On the question of principle involved, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the right of belligerents to bomb merchantment in ports?

Mr. Eden: Certainly not. That is why we have made this reservation.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Then, do I understand that the Government do hold General Franco responsible for the lives which were lost?

Mr. Eden: We have made it clear more than once that we hold ourselves free to hold whichever party may be concerned responsible for any damage done within territorial waters.

Mr. Cocks: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the identity of the submarine which torpedoed the "Endymion" is now known to the British authorities?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he received a report that the British steamer "Lake Geneva" was attacked by a submarine on 15th January; and, if so, what action was taken consequent on this report?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir. I have received reports which state that at about 1.30 p.m. on 22nd January last, a torpedo was fired at the British steamship "Lake Geneva" by an unknown submarine in the vicinity of Valencia. The torpedo apparently passed under the ship and no damage was caused. Strong representations were made to the insurgent naval authorities with regard to this attack, and, in view of the subsequent attacks on British shipping, the action referred to by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 7th February, was finally taken.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the First Lord aware that apparently the Foreign Office is unaware that this attack took place?

Mr. Cooper: I am aware of nothing of the sort. My right hon. Friend referred to this attack in answer to a question this afternoon.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Is there any information as to whether this submarine was operating from Valencia or not?

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Has any reply been received from the Franco authorities to the representations which the First Lord said had been made?

Mr. Cooper: Representations were made some time ago, and the Franco authorities expressed their regret.

Mr. Davidson: Does the answer of the First Lord indicate that, whether a ship is hit or whether it is missed, protests will still be made?

Mr. Alexander: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the renewed outbreak of piracy in the Mediterranean, steps have been taken to trace the ports from which the pirates put to sea and to exercise effective action to prevent further outrages?

Mr. Cooper: I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him and to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on Monday last, 7th February.

Mr. Alexander: May we take it from the First Lord that, in view of the statement of policy by the Foreign Secretary, the Royal Navy will be instructed to prevent any action at all by these pirate submarines against British shipping, even to preventing them from coming out of port?

Mr. Cooper: I do not think that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman could be interpreted to mean that submarines should not be allowed on the surface, but that every step possible will be taken to prevent any submarine being allowed in that part of the sea submerged, and the authorities concerned have been warned what the result will be if their submarines are discovered under water.

Mr. Alexander: Is not the First Lord aware that anybody who knows the efficiency of the Royal Navy believes that they know all about these submarines and where they come from; and, as the lives of British seamen are being lost regularly in the Mediterranean, ought not the Royal Navy to take action to prevent them from coming out of port?

Mr. Cooper: I feel confident that the steps now being taken will be effective.

Commander Marsden: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the

Board of Admiralty were satisfied from the evidence available that the steamship "Endymion" was sunk by a torpedo fired from a submarine?

Mr. Cooper: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) on Monday last, 7th February, to which I have nothing to add.

Commander Marsden: How can the First Lord reconcile that answer, which said that there was no evidence at all, with the statement of the Foreign Secretary, both on Monday and to-day, that there was an attack made?

Mr. Cooper: The statement that I made did not say that there was no evidence at all. I merely gave what evidence there was.

Commander Marsden: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has obtained evidence explaining why the steamship "Endymion" had deviated from the trade route advised for merchant shipping in the Mediterranean; and, if so, was this deviation by orders of the charterers or on the captain's own responsibility?

Mr. Cooper: I regret that the information required is not available.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty have received reports either from the officer in command of the naval forces engaged in the Nyon Agreement patrol, or any other source, of the torpedoing of the Dutch steamer "Hannah," which was laden with a cargo of wheat for Valencia, off Alicante, on 11th January, and of the bombing of the French steamer "Guaruga," east of Almeria, on 2nd January; and what steps have been taken to ensure co ordination of information between all the naval forces engaged in the Nyon patrol?

Mr. Cooper: I have received a report to the effect that the Dutch steamship "Hannah" was sunk by torpedo in the vicinity of Cape San Antonio on the morning of 11th January last. I have no information of any attack on a French ship named "Guaruga." As regards the last part of the question, the British, French and Italian naval authorities engaged on the Nyon patrol are in direct


touch with one another, and arrangements exist for the rapid transmission of information.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the number of Italian soldiers landed in Spain during the last six months; and whether a large contingent is now being shipped to that country?

Mr. Eden: I have seen rumours to the effect that further Italian soldiers have landed in Spain, but I have no definite information that substantiates this. As regards the second part of the question, as I informed the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 7th February, my attention has been called to rumours which have lately appeared in the Press, but I have received no evidence which in any way confirms them.

Mr. Strauss: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the number of Italian soldiers landed in Spain during the last six weeks?

Mr. Eden: I have no definite information.

Mr. T. Williams: Would the Nonintervention Committee have been able to detect the movement of large numbers of troops if, in fact, there had been any?

Mr. Eden: I would rather not answer that. There is the question of difficulties of control at present, but I am confident that there have been no large movement of troops recently.

Mr. Williams: From whom could we expect to get the right information, assuming that that information was there?

Mr. Eden: As the hon. Member will know, we have various sources of information, some of which I could disclose, and some of which I could not.

Colonel Wedgwood: With regard to the question of whether a large contingent is now being shipped, has the right hon. Gentleman any reports from our representatives in Italy that such importations are taking place?

Mr. Eden: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman can be sure that I would not have made such a statement as I have made, could I not be confident of its accuracy.

Mr. Thorne: Is there any information to the contrary, that Mussolini is fed-up and is sending no troops at all?

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the present position of the Non-intervention Committee; what progress has been made in the discussions relating to the withdrawal of foreign combatants from Spain; what points have been agreed upon by the Governments represented on the committee and upon what points agreement has not yet been reached; and what is the attitude of the Government of Spain and of the insurgent authorities, respectively, upon the various points which have been submitted to them by the committee?

Mr. Eden: As regards the present position of the Non-intervention Committee and the discussions concerning the withdrawal of foreign volunteers, I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave on 1st February to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander).

Mr. Cocks: Seeing that the resolution has, as I understand, 135 paragraphs, would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing it as a White Paper, indicating the points on which agreement has been reached and also the replies of the Spanish authorities?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid I cannot publish details of a matter which is still under discussion by a large number of Powers.

Mr. Thurtle: Is it the view of the Government that there must be a substantial withdrawal of foreign troops before any belligerent rights are granted?

Mr. Eden: The attitude of the Government was indicated in the terms of the White Paper on the subject.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position of Sir Henry Chilton as British Ambassador to Spain; and what action he proposes to take with regard to the Ambassador's reference in a recently published interview to the Government to which he is credited as "the Reds"?

Mr. Eden: Sir H. Chilton retains the appointment of British Ambassador to Spain, but is at present on leave of absence in this country. I am unaware of the incident referred to in the second part of the question.

Mr. Mander: If I send the right hon. Gentleman an account of an interview in which the Ambassador refers to the Government to which he is accredited as "the Reds," will he take the necessary action and ask the Ambassador to have more courtesy in future?

Mr. Eden: I am naturally ready to examine anything brought to me by any hon. Member of this House, but I think I must make it plain that I have seen Sir Henry Chilton and that he has no recollection whatsoever of any statement of that kind.

Sir Joseph Nall: Can any action be taken if the statement is in accord with the facts?

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the proposal recently made by the Dutch Government to the three Scandinavian Governments that they should join with the British and French Governments in recognising the Italian conquest of Ethiopia; and whether the Dutch Government acted with the approval and authority of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Eden: I understand that towards the end of last year the Netherlands Government consulted the Governments of the other Oslo Convention Powers on the possibility of reaching agreement on the terms of the letters of credence of their representatives in Rome, and that before taking any final step the Netherlands Government had intended to consult both His Majesty's Government and the French Government. The initiative in this matter lay exclusively with the Netherlands Government, and the reply, therefore, to the second part of the question is in the negative. The Netherlands Government have, however, recently informed His Majesty's Government officially of the initiative taken by them in this matter.

Mr. Henderson: Is it still the policy of His Majesty's Government to refuse to recognise the Italian conquest of Ethiopia?

Mr. Eden: That is quite another question. The hon. Gentleman asked about the action of the Netherlands Government.

Mr. Henderson: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's supplementary question does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken with reference to the censoring by the Japanese authorities in Shanghai of despatches to the "Manchester Guardian" by its representative?

Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on 3rd February, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Mander: Is there any reason why despatches from the International Settlement should be interfered with or treated with differently from commercial despatches?

Mr. Eden: If the hon. Member will look at the answer I referred to, he will see that I am in general agreement with his views.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total number of British military and naval casualties in China since August, 1937, until the last available date?

Mr. Eden: The total number of British military casualties due to the Sino-Japanese hostilities in China since August, 1937, is five killed, or died of wounds, and five wounded. The naval casualties are one killed and three wounded.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBYA (ITALIAN FORCES).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the approximate strength of the Italian forces now stationed in Libya, together with the numbers by which such forces have been increased since 15th November, 1937?

Mr. Eden: According to such information as is in my possession, the strength


of the Italian forces now stationed in Libya is approximately the same as it was when my Noble Friend replied to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member on 15th November last.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPANISH STEAMSHIP "RITA GARCIA."

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to who was the representative of General Franco in this country who instructed the captain of the Spanish ship "Rita Garcia," held at Immingham pending litigation as to ownership, to get in touch with the British Union of Fascists with a view to providing a crew to take the ship out of the port without observing the customary legal formalities; and whether he will make representations to General Franco that this action contravenes the term, purely commercial, under which an official representative of General Franco was accepted by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Eden: I have no information regarding the instructions given to the captain of this vessel, and therefore, cannot consider representations, but I would, however, point out in this connection that the vessel had been released from arrest at the time of her sailing. There is, therefore, no question of the customary legal formalities not having been observed.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to make inquiries, in view of the current opinion, as to whether this agent of Franco is engaging in activities associated with certain people in this country for purposes inimical to the Spanish Government?

Mr. Eden: As the hon. Member is aware, this is a very complicated question, in which there are a large number of inquiries to be made from different Departments. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question down.

Mr. Gallacher: As none of the Departments seem prepared to make inquiries, will the right hon. Gentleman see that adequate inquiries are made?

Mr. Eden: If the matter is one for me, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BATTLESHIPS.

Mr. Boothby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to reconstruct the whole of the "Queen Elizabeth" class of battleships; and, if so, by what date the reconstruction of all five ships will have been completed?

Mr. Cooper: Two of the ships have completed large repairs with considerable alterations and additions. The third has been extensively modernised, and new machinery has been installed. The other two ships of the class are at present in hand for similar modernisation. The dates of their completion must depend on the progress of the work.

Mr. Thorne: Are the two ships that are already in hand to be between 42,000 and 43,000 tons?

Mr. Cooper: I am referring to the ships of the "Queen Elizabeth" class. Their weight has not been increased by the improvements made.

Mr. Boothby: In view of the international situation, will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to expedite the completion of the reconstruction of these vessels?

Mr. Cooper: Everything will be done.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not true to say that the two ships being built range from 42,000 to 43,000 tons?

Mr. Cooper: The question does not refer to the ships that are being built.

Mr. Garro Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether large repairs or extensive modernisation represents to a great degree the necessary alterations?

Mr. Cooper: In one of the ships new machinery is being installed, much more than in the first two ships, and the latter two ships are also having new machinery installed.

PROMOTIONS, LOWER DECK.

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) the number of officers commissioned from the lower deck under the mate system, in the executive and engineering branches and the Royal Marines, respectively, between 1913 and 1932; and the ranks and numbers of the officers of each branch still serving on the active list;
(2) the number of officers commissioned from the lower deck under the mate system between 1913 and 1932 and still serving; the number of executive officers who have qualified in each of the specialist branches; the number of engineer officers who have taken the advanced engineering course and any other special qualifications; and the number of

Promotion from lower deck to commissioned rank.



Executive.
Engineering.
Royal Marines.


Year.
Promoted under Mate Scheme.
Number still serving.
Promoted under Mate Scheme.
Number still serving.
Granted Corps Commissions.
Number still serving.


1913
44
1
Captain.
—

—
2

—


1914
31

—
14
2
Engr. Cdrs.
4

—


1915
108
2
Commanders.
28
1
2
2
1 Major.









1 Ch. Inspr.









R.M.P.


1916
51
4
1 Captain.
42
15
1

—


2 Cdrs.



1 Lt.-Cdr.



1917
92
6
1 Captain.
52
17
3

—


2 Cdrs.



3 Lt.-Cdrs.



1918
43
7
2 Cdrs.
17
8
2
2
1 Major.


5 Lt.-Cdrs.
1 Captain.


1919
—

—
10
2
2
2
1 Major.









1 Captain.


1920
—
1
Commander.
6
4.
2
2
Captains.


1921
3
2
1 Cdr.
7
6
Eng. Cdrs.
2
2
Captains.


1 Lt.-Cdr.
1
Eng. Lt- Cdr.


1922
6
3
Lt.-Cdrs.
6
6
Eng. Cdrs.
2
1
Captain.


1923
6
4
Lt.-Cdrs.
5
3
Eng. Cdrs.
2
2
Captains.


1
Eng. Lt.-Cdr.


1
Lt.-Cdr. (E).


1924

4
Lt.-Cdrs.
5
5
Lt.-Cdr. (E).
1
1
Captain.


1925

4
Lt.-Cdrs.
5
5
Lt.-Cdr. (E).
—

—


1926
9
6
5 Lt.-Cdrs.
5
5
Lt.-Cdr. (E).
—

—


1 Lt.



1927
7
6
Lts.
5
4
Lt. Cdr. (E).
—

—


1928
8
7
Lts.
5
5
Lieut. (E)
1

—


1929
5
3
Lts.
4
4
—

—


1930
6
5
Lts.
4
4
—

—


1931
12
10
Lts.
4
4
1
1
Lieutenant.


1932
8
8
Lts.
4
4
—

—



461
83
3 Captains.
228
107
64 Eng. Cdrs.
27
15
3 Majors.



10 Cdrs.
22 Eng.
10 Captains.



30 Lt. Cdrs.
Lt. Cdrs. and
1 Lieut.



40 Lts.
Lt. Cdrs. (E)
1 Ch. Insp.






21 Lts. (E).
R.M.P.

The following numbers specialised:—

Executive;
Navigation, 2. Gunnery, I. Torpedo, 3. Signals, 1. Pilots (Air), 13. Observers (Air), 7. Anti-submarine, 1. Physical Training Instructors, 7. Assistant Surveyors, 4.

Engineering:
Number who have taken the Advanced Engineering Course = 12.

Royal Marine Officers:
Passed Staff Course (Naval), 1. Small Arms, 11. Signals, 2. Gunnery, 4. Coast Artillery, 2. Anti-Aircraft Artillery, 2. Physical Training Instructors, 2. Naval Ordnance. 2.

Royal Marine officers who have qualified in each of the specialist branches?

Mr. Cooper: The reply to these questions can conveniently be combined in a tabular statement, which I will, with the hon. Member's consent, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

ROSYTH.

Mr. Boothby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Rosyth Dockyard is now capable of carrying out repairs to capital ships and is otherwise efficient as a fleet base; and whether any steps are being taken to provide adequate battery and boom defences for the fleet anchorage in the Firth of Forth?

Mr. Cooper: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative.

Mr. Boothby: In view of our experience during the first five months of the late War, when we found ourselves without any safe anchorage, does not my right hon. Friend think that it is desirable that no such danger should be run in the future?

Mr. Cooper: Steps are being taken and everything done to improve the defences at Rosyth. The question of its use as a naval base involves many considerations which I cannot go into now.

PRESS SECTION, ADMIRALTY.

Wing-Commander James: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many persons are employed in the Press department of the Admiralty; how many are ex-naval officers; and what extra-Admiralty supervision is exercised over their activities towards curbing the advocacy of policies in respect of inter service matters that conflict with declared Governmental decisions?

Mr. Cooper: Four persons are employed in the Admiralty Press section. None of them are ex-naval officers; the head of the section is a serving Commander, R.N., the others are civilians. No extra-Admiralty supervision is exercised over the section, and it has no concern with the advocacy of policy on any subject.

Wing-Commander James: May we assume that the articles that appear regularly in certain organs of the Press on the Fleet Air Arm controversy by their naval correspondents are not inspired?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that the publicity department of the Admiralty is far less effective than the War Office as far as the Minister is concerned?

SHIPBUILDING PLANT.

Mr. Day: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements have been made for the maintenance of any special shipbuilding plant required for naval construction in either Government or private yards?

Mr. Cooper: With the large shipbuilding programme at present in course of execution, no special arrangements are necessary to ensure the maintenance of plant required for naval construction in either Government or private yards.

Mr. Day: Have the Government taken the precaution to see that a stable amount of labour is also maintained; and have any precautions been taken with regard to the private yards?

WARRANT OFFICERS.

Mr. Cocks: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the question of improving the position of warrant officers in respect to marriage allowances, revision of widows' pensions, reduction of the 10-year service qualification for promotion to commissioned rank, the counting of broken periods during a year in calculating pensions, gratuities on promotion to commissioned rank; readjustment of climatic pay, better cabin accommodation in ships of the cruiser class, seven matters upon which sympathetic consideration was promised by the then First Lord of the Admiralty and the then Civil Lord of the Admiralty on 18th March, 1937?

Mr. Cooper: The hon. Member will be aware from the reply which I gave on this subject on 8th December to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Central (Mr. R. Beaumont) that the Admiralty have had under consideration recommendations made by a committee which investigated the shortage of candidates in the executive warrant officers branch. The investigations of this committee showed that the absence of any marriage allowance for warrant officers occupies such an important place among the reasons underlying the shortage that the Admiralty consider it wiser to defer any announcement with regard to improvements in the conditions of warrant officers until a decision has been reached on the general question of marriage allowance for naval officers. I hope, however, to be able to make a statement in the course of the Debate on the Navy Estimates.

Mr. Cocks: Will the First Lord bear in mind that the Government gave a definite pledge that improvements would be made in the present financial year, and not in 1938; and will his statement therefore be generally favourable to the claims of the warrant officers?

Mr. Cooper: They will be made as soon as possible.

CLERICAL STAFFS (SALARIES).

Mr. Alexander: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that an award of the Industrial Court in 1936 for an increase in salary to clerical staffs has been withheld from operation in the case of some members of the staffs of the armament supply and victually departments of the Admiralty; that, in justification, it has been stated that about one-half of the staffs of these departments are inefficient; and will he make a full statement on the matter?

Mr. Cooper: The practical effect of the award referred to was to fuse third grade clerks with second grade clerks, and when making the award the Court stated:
A clerk whose present salary is above the efficiency bar in the scales awarded (i.e., £230) shall not proceed beyond the existing maximum until the Department in which such clerk is serving has certified that he or she is competent to discharge the highest duties now performed by second and third grade clerks.
The withholding of the certificate referred to did not mean that the clerk concerned was inefficient, but merely that, as stated by the Court, he or she was not competent to perform the highest duties performed by the grades in question. The terms of the certificate were modified last November by agreement with the Civil Service Clerical Association, and a further review of every case was ordered with the result that the number who have been refused their certificate amounts to only 8 per cent of the total in all Admiralty Departments. These numbers are subject to a further review in six months' time.

Mr. Alexander: Is the First Lord aware that in the case of the armament supply department mentioned in the question, 36 out of 68 of the clerical staff have been refused the application of the award, and that in the victualling department, 15 out of 22 have been refused, more than half in each case; and does he think that it can be substantiated that that very large proportion of these important staffs at this time are inefficient for the application of the award?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir, the later figures have now been reduced to 23 per cent., and it is hoped that when they are again reviewed they will be reduced still further. I would appeal that no suggestion should be made—it was certainly plain from the Court's statement that there was no such suggestion—that the clerks in this department are inefficient. Now that two grades have been combined certain clerks are not fully competent to fulfil higher duties.

Mr. Ammon: Why is it that the Admiralty is the only Department that has not given the full award to its employés? Since when has the Admiralty gathered together so many misfits, as seems to be the case?

Mr. Cooper: I do not think that we have gathered together misfits. I am not aware of the exact position in the other Departments, but I think they have also had difficulties.

Mr. Alexander: Is it not clear that the First Lord should give personal consideration to this matter and see that some measure of justice is meted out in the Admiralty, as in every other Department?

Mr. Cooper: I will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Mathers: May we be informed how efficiency is ascertained?

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL SHIPS (JAPAN).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now say whether the Japanese Government have sent a reply to the Government note that was delivered in Tokyo last Saturday in connection with the limitation of capital ships and guns?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — CREDIT FACILITIES (AGGRESSOR COUNTRIES).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recommendations contained in the van Zeeland report that guarantees should be provided that credit facilities would not be diverted from their object to serve warlike ends, His Majesty's Government will refuse to allow credit facilities to be granted to any Government declared to be an


aggressor by the Council of the League of Nations?

Mr. Eden: The recommendation in M. van Zeeland's report which the hon. Member mentions appears to be of general application, and not to refer especially to the position which would arise if any Government were declared an aggressor by the Council of the League of Nations. In the event of such a declaration, the measures to be adopted by the States Members of the League would be a matter for their joint consideration in the light of the relevant provisions of the Covenant.

Mr. Henderson: Does that mean that the Government are not prepared to grant credit facilities to Italy and Japan as long as they are declared aggressors?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government will conform to the decision of the Council of the League of Nations in this matter.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day will not in any way facilitate the granting of credits to aggressor nations?

Mr. Eden: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that any granting of credits to a nation declared an aggressor would be a violation of Article 16?

Mr. Eden: Of course, if the League pronounced and asked for certain action to be taken, His Majesty's Government would conform to that.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Whether the League has asked for action or not, is it not plain that it would be a breach of Article 16 to grant credits to an aggressor nation?

Mr. Eden: I think I would like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

BROADCASTS IN ARABIC.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what have been the results up to date of the broadcasts in Arabic so far as Palestine is concerned; and for what reason it was not found possible to broadcast a reliable British news service in Arabic on a medium wavelength through the existing

Palestine broadcasting service in Jerusalem?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The British Broadcasting Corporation's broadcasts in Arabic started only five weeks ago. It is too early to attempt to estimate what effect they have produced in Palestine. With regard to the second part of the question, a news service in Arabic is, in fact, broadcast from the Palestine Broadcasting Station in Jerusalem on a medium wavelength, but the transmissions do not cover such a wide area as the British Broadcasting Corporation transmissions on the short wave.

Mr. Crossley: Is it not a fact that our first broadcast in Arabic contained as its piece de resistance news of the execution of an Arab in Jerusalem?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I believe that is so.

DRAINAGE, TEL AVIV.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has now been made with regard to approval for the loan and drainage scheme for the municipality of Tel Aviv, in Palestine?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on 29th November last.

Mr. Williams: In view of the great danger to 30,000 people owing to the absence of a modern drainage scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to expedite the matter?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think it is a question for decision by me. We will, however, do everything we can to facilitate the matter.

Mr. Williams: What is causing so much delay?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think it is the difficulty of raising a loan for a Palestinian project at the present time.

MILITARY COURT TRIAL.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a German-Jew woman arrived at Haifa on 17th January with her two young children and two revolvers and was arrested and tried by the military court; and what was the result of the trial and what has happened to these people?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have asked the High Commissioner for Palestine for a report on this case. On receipt of his reply I will communicate with the right hon. and gallant Member.

SITUATION.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has a statement to make as to the present situation in Palestine and of terrorist activities since he made his last statement to the House?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In the period between 31st January and 7th February the following further incidents have been reported: murders, two; wounding, two; sniping, eight; bombing, one; sabotage, six. No further military encounters with armed bands have occurred since 31st January; the Army are continuing search operations in districts where the presence of bands has been reported, while the police are maintaining intensified patrols and searches for arms.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the origin of the arms captured on those arrested?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir. The arms which have been captured have mostly come from Syria, but a lot of them were in the country already.

Mr. Mander: May I ask whether any invitations have been issued to the new Royal Commission?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is quite a different question.

BOARD OF DEPUTIES (RESOLUTION).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make with reference to the resolution on Palestine adopted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews on 16th January, and forwarded to him, expressing the desire for a solution of the Palestine question on the basis of a Jewish dominion within the British Commonwealth of Nations?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Prime Minister has referred this resolution to me, and a copy was also sent to me direct by the Board of Deputies. The hon. Member will hardly expect me to deal in a reply to his question with the various issues involved in the proposal which the resolution contains. The declared policy of His

Majesty's Government in regard to Palestine, has been communicated to the House in recent White Papers, and to these I have nothing to add.

Mr. Mander: Will this important and gratifying resolution be brought to the attention of the League Council and the Mandates Commission?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am quite sure it will, but whether they will regard it with the same enthusiasm as the hon. Gentleman is another matter.

Mr. Crossley: To what extent do the Board of Deputies represent British Jewry?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not know.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that this proposal of the Board of Deputies represents a complete desertion and betrayal of Jews in Germany and the rest of Europe?

PARTITION.

Captain Cazalet: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in order to allay anxiety in this country and in Palestine as a result of the publication of the White Paper of 5th January, he will give the House an assurance that His Majesty's Government fully adheres to the policy of partition declared last July in the White Paper and confirmed in September at Geneva?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: His Majesty's Government stated last July that they had reached the conclusion that a scheme on the general lines recommended by the Palestine Royal Commission represented the best and most hopeful solution of the deadlock in that country. To this policy they still adhere and a new Technical Commission is now to be appointed to work out a definite scheme as required by the Resolution of this House passed on 21st July.

Captain Cazalet: Is it not a fact that unless and until partition comes into operation, the terms of the mandate hold the field?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly until the mandate is amended by the Council of the League, it cannot be altered by the act of His Majesty's Government.

Sir Percy Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the longer delay


foreshadowed by the report is causing consternation among great numbers of people?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No one regrets the delay more than I do, but there, again, we have to pay attention to the view so clearly expressed at Geneva that before there can be any termination of mandatory conditions, certain provisions that were laid down by the Council in 1931 have to be fulfilled, and the Mandates Commission recommended that an adequate interval should be interposed between the existing mandate and any future arrangement to which the Council of the League agree.

Mr. Mander: Would it be true to say that the Government are anxious to get on as rapidly as possible with the policy of partition, having regard to all the circumstances of the case?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider allowing unrestricted immigration during this period of delay?

JEWISH IMMIGRATION.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the imposition of a political high-level for Jewish immigration into Palestine is having injurious effects on the economic life of the country, and in view of the Foreign Secretary's declaration in Geneva that this was a purely temporary measure, as well as of the Permanent Mandates Commission's opinion that it constituted a departure from the principle sanctioned by the League Council that immigration was to be proportionate to the country's economic absorptive capacity, an assurance will be given that the political high-level will not be extended after 31st March, 1938?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The arrangements to be made for the regulation of immigration after 31st March next are still under consideration, and I am not in a position to make any statement at this stage.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the glorious uncertainty prevailing in Palestine is having distressing effects, not only on those who would like to go there, but on those who are there at present; and will he not make

up his mind as to what the policy on immigration is to be after 31st March?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I certainly hope that a decision will be reached shortly. I realise that until it is reached the flood of propaganda and counter-propaganda which I am receiving on this subject will continue.

Mr. Williams: In order to avoid further propaganda, will the right hon. Gentleman make up his mind as quickly as possible?

Mr. Lipson: In taking this matter into consideration and giving a decision upon it, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the increased severity of the measures adopted against Jews in Rumania and other countries and the need thus created for more immigration into Palestine?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: All relevant considerations have to be taken into account, but economic conditions in Palestine have also to be taken into consideration.

Colonel Clifton Brown: Is not this matter one entirely for the High Commissioner and not for the right hon. Gentleman?

NIGERIA (IJEBU PROVINCE).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to announce his decision as to the suggested partition of Ijebu province, Nigeria?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. The Commission of Inquiry has recommended that Ijebu Remo should be separated from Ijebu Ode. I have approved of the Governor accepting this recommendation and that it should take effect from 1st April, 1938.

Mr. Mathers: Has the right hon. Gentleman himself examined all the evidence given at the inquiry which was held, and is he satisfied that the recommendation is a sound one? Is he aware that the idea of partition is opposed by, I am told, 90 per cent. of the people affected?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: On the contrary, I thought that this gave effect to what the hon. Member has been asking for, namely, separation. I understand that a full inquiry was held, and the report was quite clear that this separation is just.

Mr. Mathers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the chiefs protested against the idea of separation, and being put under another chief?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not a question of being put under another chief, but a question whether one of the existing native authorities should be separated and made independent. I understood that was what the hon. Member has been asking for.

Mr. Mathers: I was not presuming to dictate to the right hon. Gentleman, but I asked him to examine the position, and it seems clear from his answer that he has not examined the position properly.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have seen a summary of the report, and I am quite satisfied that the recommendation is sound.

CEYLON.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the request from the Government of Ceylon asking him to protest against Japanese restrictions on the importation of tea and fibre; and what action he has taken in the matter?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have seen a report in the Press to the effect that such a request is on its way to me, but I have not so far received it.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the reasons for the issue of the recent Order in Council giving the Governor of Ceylon special powers to enact such legislative measures as he may consider necessary, seeing that the Order is inconsistent with the Government's policy of developing fuller responsible self-government in Ceylon?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The amending Order in Council is intended to clarify the Government's special powers, and to simplify the procedure for their exercise on the lines of the relevant section of the Government of India. Act. It was rendered necessary by the persistent attempts of the State Council to encroach on the powers given to the Governor on the recommendation of the Special Commission of 1928.

Mr. Creech Jones: Does not the Order in Council limit the privileges and powers of the Legislative Council; and is not this fact causing considerable uneasiness among Members of the Council?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I believe that some of them do not like it, but this is meant to make clear what was intended by the Donoughmore Commission. In practice, what was intended has not been followed. This is a comparatively small matter, and the Order in Council is for the purpose of making quite clear what is the logical intention of the constitution.

WEST INDIES.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the labour unrest which exists in many parts of the British West Indies; whether he will give particulars of the number of strikes and other evidences of that unrest arising during the year 1937; how many casualties arose therefrom; and what action he is taking to remedy the grievances of workers whose standard of life is too low?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the reply is necessarily of some length, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Mathers: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of the number of cases of unrest, and evidence of unrest and strikes?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It covers four pages.

Following is the reply:

Yes, Sir. As the hon. Member is aware, there were disturbances in Barbados and Trinidad which have been the subjects of Commissions of Inquiry, the reports of which have been published.

There was also a demonstration by unemployed and ex-service men at Kingston in Jamaica in August, 1937, when it became necessary for the police to disperse the crowd with batons. A number of small strikes also occurred during the year in various parts of the Colony, but as I stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for St. Paneras, North (Mr. Grant-Ferris) on 1st December, agreement was reached between the employers and the labourers, and increased wages have now been given in the case of the banana


labourers who were those principally concerned. There was no disorder.

In St. Lucia there was a strike of labourers in the sugar industry in August, 1937. A Commission of Inquiry was appointed by the Administrator, and an interim report on the Sugar Industry was published on 7th September. It recommended certain minimum wage rates in respect of both task work and day labour for labour employed in that industry and the rates recommended were given effect in the St. Lucia Sugar Industry Wage Order of 6th October. The final report of the Commission has now been published in St. Lucia, and its further recommendations are now under consideration by the acting Administrator.

A strike occurred among the seamen employed by the Transport and Harbours Department of the Government of British Guiana, which was settled satisfactorily. There was also a one-day strike of certain employés of the postal service in that colony.

A small dock strike occurred in Antigua at the end of April, 1937, but it collapsed after some small increases in wages had been granted.

In addition to the above, disturbances, not primarily due to labour unrest, occurred in Inagua, one of the islands in the Bahamas. A report has been placed in the Library of the House.

As regards the second part of the question, the total casualties were:—

Killed
Injured.


Trinidad
14
59


Barbados
14
47


Jamaica
—
7


Bahamas
1
2

As regards the last part of the question, I have recently drawn the attention of all Colonial Administrations to the necessity of making provision for adequate machinery to ensure the proper supervision of labour, and a copy of my despatch on this subject dated 24th August, 1937, has been placed in the Library of the House.

In British Guiana a Labour Inspectorate, with a Commissioner of Labour and subordinate staff has been set up, and it is also proposed that the officers of the District Administration should also be entrusted with duties and powers of labour inspection.

In Trinidad, as the hon. Member is aware, labour conditions have been thoroughly investigated by the recent Commission of Inquiry, and their recommendations are now under consideration by the Government of Trinidad. In the meantime an officer has been appointed from the Home Service as Industrial Adviser.

In Barbados, the Commission of Inquiry has recommended the appointment of a Labour Officer to assist in the settlement of disputes, and the fixing of minimum wages for various workers, the provision of houses and the clearance of slums. These recommendations are under consideration by the Government and Legislature of Barbados.

New Labour Inspectorates have been established in Grenada, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and Commissions have been appointed in all three islands to investigate labour conditions and rates of pay. The commissions in Grenada and St. Vincent have not yet concluded their work, and as already stated, some of the recommendations of the St. Lucia Commission have already been implemented.

In Jamaica considerable progress has been made towards improving labour conditions: a Housing Board has been established, a Workmen's Compensation Bill is being introduced, legislation for the control of factories and workshops with minimum wage-fixing machinery is contemplated, and consideration is being given to the question of creating an organisation for arbitration and conciliation.

Finally, as was stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Hems-worth (Mr. G. Griffiths) on 14th December, 1937, Colonial Administrations were requested last summer to report upon the operation of the legislation providing for the fixing of minimum rates of wages So far as the West Indian Colonies are concerned such minimum rates have been prescribed in the Bahamas for unskilled labourers employed in the building trade; in Grenada and St. Vincent for agricultural labourers, and in St. Lucia for agricultural labourers generally, for workers engaged in the sugar industry and for persons engaged in various occupations in the coaling industry.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the rates of wages


and weekly hours of work of unskilled workers in the sugar industry and oil industry, respectively, in the West Indian islands?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with

——
Sugar Estate unskilled workers.
Oil Industry unskilled workers.


Daily rate of wages.
Weekly hours of work
Daily rate of wages.
Weekly hours of work


Barbados
…
…
1s. 3d.
49
—
—


Jamaica
…
…
2s. 0d.−2s. 6d.
50
—
—


Leewards—






Antigua
…
…
1s. 2d.−1s. 4d.
44
—
—


St. Kitts Nevis*
…
…
1s. 4d.−1s. 6d.
44
—
—


Trinidad*
…
…
35c.
54
72c.
48


Windwards*—






Grenada
…
…
1s. 3d.−2s. 0d.
48
—
—


St. Vincent.
…
…
1s. 2d.
48−54
—
—


St. Lucia
…
…
1s. 3d.
54
—
—


*Higher wages are earned by "task" work.

Only the figures relating to Trinidad, Barbados, St. Vincent and St. Lucia are based on information later than 1936.

The Trinidad sterling dollar is equivalent to 4s. 2d.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies approximately the number of labour or native disturbances which have occurred in the British West Indian possessions during the years 1935, 1936, and 1937, respectively; and the number of persons killed or injured in such disturbances?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Disturbances involving casualties occurred in Jamaica, St. Kitts, and St. Vincent during the year 1935, and in the Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad in 1937. The total casualties in the three years were: killed, 39; injured, 175.

Mr. Riley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that those disturbances are largely due to the conditions of labour in those islands, and, if so, does he not think it would be useful to have a Royal Commission to inquire into Colonial labour conditions?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There was a Commission with regard to the West Indies, under the chairmanship of Lord Olivier, not very long ago, and it dealt with sugar labour and sugar problems generally. In the recent report of the very important Commission on Trinidad, there were very far-reaching recommendations. I am satisfied that the growth of labour departments of the Colonial Governments is essential in view of what has happened.

the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The latest figures available in the Colonial Office are:

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any trade union organisations in existence among the workers in the sugar and oil industries of the West Indian Islands; if so, whether such trade unions are permitted to function as freely as trade unions in this country; and whether such trade unions are recognised by the West Indian employers?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Trade union legislation exists in Trinidad, Jamaica, the Leeward Islands, Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. There are registered trade unions for sugar and oil workers in Trinidad, but I have no information regarding the other islands. As regards the conditions under which trade unions in Trinidad function, I would invite reference to the report of the Commission of Inquiry. This is a matter which will engage the early attention of the recently appointed Industrial Adviser in Trinidad.

Mr. Riley: Are limitations placed on the functions of trade unions in Trinidad which do not exist in regard to trade unions in this country?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Not that I am aware of. Certainly that is not the intention. What we want to avoid are trade unions not functioning as trade unions do in this country.

Mr. Benn: Does not the Royal Commission point out that trade unions in Trinidad are subject to restrictions which do not exist in this country?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: They have been in the past.

COLONIAL OFFICE (LABOUR ADVISER).

Mr. Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the growing importance of labour problems in many Colonies, he will appoint a labour adviser to the staff of the Colonial Office with functions corresponding to those of the agricultural and other advisers?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. I have come to the conclusion that the appointment of such an officer would be of value, and provision for the post is being made in the Colonial Office Estimates for the forthcoming financial year.

Mr. Creech Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman carry the consideration further by the appointment of an Advisory Committee at the Colonial Office to deal with these matters?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There is already an Advisory Committee which was established in the Colonial Office when the Labour Government were in power.

Mr. Creech Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman appoint an Advisory Committee in place of the existing Inter-Departmental Committee, which will function in a different way?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I hesitate to disturb the existing arrangement.

TRINIDAD.

Major Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a company of the Sherwood Foresters was sent last November from Bermuda to Trinidad owing to disturbances there; that this company was sent to the Pitch Lake, and was obliged to live in bell tents from about the middle of November until the end of December while huts were being built for them; at whose instance these troops were sent to that hot and unhealthy spot; what percentage of the troops have suffered from malaria; and

why such duties as they were asked to perform there were not carried out by the Trinidad constabulary and volunteers?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. The troops were despatched to Trinidad at the Governor's urgent request and stationed by him at Brighton with a view to restoring confidence among the law-abiding and responsible section of the community in the southern area of the Island where confidence was lacking. I deeply regret that 31 cases of malaria occurred between 22nd November and 26th December. While the troops were under canvas the incidence of malaria was such as to cause concern, but since their accommodation in mosquito-proofed huts the detachment is living under conditions similar to those in which numbers of Europeans reside in the same area without loss of health, and the Acting Governor and his medical advisers are satisfied with the arrangements now made. As regards the last part of the question, the despatch of these troops was only authorised because the Governor considered that in the then circumstances the use of the police and local volunteers might be inadequate.

Major Mills: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with me that when troops are called out in support of the civil power they should be kept in reserve as much as possible, and that they should be kept in as healthy a position as possible? Does he not think that the Acting Governor, whoever he was, showed a regrettable lack of appreciation of that consideration in sending troops to this unhealthy spot?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not for me to express an opinion on what is obviously a technical matter, but I gather that the area where the trouble was feared was a long way distant from the Capital, and that as there was no accommodation they had to be accommodated in tents. As soon as huts could be built they were built.

Major Mills: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the shade temperature in this locality in December is 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and that in the model village referred to in the report of the Commission the white inhabitants, at any rate, live in mosquito-proof houses because the locality is so unhealthy?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That may be so.

Captain Heilgers: Were these troops provided with mosquito nets when they were sleeping in bell tents?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister when it will be possible to debate the recent report on disturbances in Trinidad?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor).

Mr. Sorensen: Cannot the Prime Minister make a more definite statement now as the answer given on Monday was very ambiguous, especially as there is great concern in many quarters respecting this report?

The Prime Minister: This matter is under discussion through the usual channels.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with a view to removing the causes of unrest in Trinidad and Tobago, as revealed in the report of the Commission of Inquiry, he has taken any steps for the setting up of a labour department and industrial court in that Colony?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As has already been announced, an Industrial Adviser with experience of such matters under the Ministry of Labour in this country has been appointed to undertake conciliation work and to form a new Labour Department in Trinidad. The Government of Trinidad has been asked for its recommendations on the findings of the Commission of Inquiry, but it may prefer to await the arrival of the new Industrial Adviser before submitting detailed proposals for the establishment of an Industrial Court.

Mr. Riley: Is it part of the duties of this adviser to advise the workers on the question of trade organisation?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly.

Mr. Benn: Will the comments of the Government of Trinidad on the report of the Royal Commission be presented to the House?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not know that there will be a single report. I have asked the Government of Trinidad to give effect to the recommendations as soon as possible. A series of legislative proposals must first go before their Legislature. I do not think there can be any comprehensive report, but simply reports from time to time on the progress that is being made.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the adviser been appointed, and if so, what is his name?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have already stated that he is Mr. Lindon of the Ministry of Labour.

TELEVISION (PLACES OF PUBLIC AMUSEMENT).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an early date for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham, relating to television in places of public amusement?

[That this House views with growing concern the development of television displayed on the screen in places of public amusement in the London area, on the grounds of the monopoly control secured to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the additional expenses involved; and, since this was not contemplated at the time the charter of the British Broadcasting Corporation was renewed, this House urges on the Government the necessity of a charter revision for the British Broadcasting Corporation to enable them to deal with this development.]

The Prime Minister: I fear I can hold out no hope of time being found for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend.

Mr. De la Bère: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Motion referred to deals with the Charter revision of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and, further, whether he is aware that the bud of liberty opened with an English spring, and that the British Broadcasting Corporation is the greatest negation of liberty that this country has ever known?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. De Chair: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of


Defence (1) whether, alter considering the possibilities of an expansion of the home production of food under the stimulus of guaranteed prices or otherwise, he has definitely decided not to rely on British agriculture for an increased supply of food in time of war in spite of the experience of the Great War, which showed that no rapid expansion of home agriculture is possible within two years of the outbreak of hostilities?
(2) In view of the fact that the food production of this country has increased by only 14 per cent. during the last seven years and of the Minister of Agriculture's announced decision not to adopt any emergency measures to speed up this rate of expansion, whether he can assure the House that at least two year's food supply in the event of war is already assured by advance storage at the present moment, since it would not be possible to secure an appreciable increase of home production within two years of the outbreak of hostilities?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestions as accurate. In fact a gross increase in home agricultural production of 19 per cent. has been achieved during the last six years as a result of the measures taken by the Government, and the increase appears to be continuing. A further appreciable emergency expansion of the home output could be secured within eight to eighteen months according to the product and the season when the emergency arose. Estimates have been made by the Departments of Agriculture of the extent to which the output in home produced foodstuffs could be increased after the outbreak of hostilities, and plans with that object are being made. With regard to storage I would ask my hon. Friend to await the Debate this afternoon.

Mr. De Chair: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was no appreciable expansion of food production during the last War until the year 1918?

Mr. T. Williams: Can the Minister tell us whether the increase of 19 per cent. to which he refers is an increase in bulk or an increase in value; and in what particular commodities big increases have taken place?

Sir T. Inskip: I have not the details to enable me to answer the hon. Member's question, but if he will put it down I dare say the Minister of Agriculture will be able to give him a reply.

Mr. Williams: Will he answer the question as to whether the increase of 19 per cent. is an increase in bulk or value?

Sir T. Inskip: I think it is an increase in volume.

Mr. De Chair: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether in view of the fact that only one-third of the food consumed in this country is now grown in this country, he is satisfied that the steady importation of the other two-thirds can be relied upon in time of war?

Sir T. Inskip: Food supply is only part of the larger problem of trade protection on the successful solution of which the safety of this country will depend in time of war. I am satisfied that appropriate arrangements are being made for this purpose, and that the security of food supplies will always receive a high order of priority.

Mr. Davidson: May we ask the right hon. Gentleman at least to give us a detailed list of the actions and plans which have been made by his Department with regard to this important question so that hon. Members may understand clearly what plans there are?

Sir T. Inskip: I should have thought this is hardly the occasion to be asked to give such an account, but, in any case, the hon. Member will recognise the impropriety of asking me to disclose full details of all our preparations.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain just exactly where the impropriety occurs, when in these days it seems to be the correct thing to tell enemies what you are doing in these matters?

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the manufacture of airframes is keeping step with that of aeroplane engines, or if the manufacture of the one is largely ahead of that of the other; and, if so, what is the relative position?

Sir T. Inskip: Initial difficulties experienced in getting the newer types of air-frames into quantity production enabled aero-engine production to gain a certain lead, which is being maintained.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his reply does not indicate that there has been a certain lack of co-ordination between the various sections of the aircraft industry?

Sir T. Inskip: I do not think so. A great deal of co-ordination has gone on with a view of increasing the production of aeroplanes.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman says that the supply of aeroplane engines has gone ahead of the supply of air frames, when, in point of fact, the supply of air frames has fallen behind the supply of air engines?

MACHINE GUNS.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether it is due to orders for machine guns not having been placed at the same time as the orders for certain aeroplanes that it has been found necessary to purchase machine guns in Sweden or other foreign countries?

Sir T. Inskip: I am reluctant to publish piecemeal information as to progress in relation to particular items in the re armament programme, but in the special circumstances of this case I may say that the facts are that comparative trials were held in 1934 and 1935 to select replacements for the heavy and the light machine guns in use by the Royal Air Force. Supply of a type of British design chosen to replace the light gun presented no difficulties. The most suitable type of available heavy gun was, however, of American design. Arrangements were made for its production in this country, but it was clear that these arrangements could not become effective in time to meet the requirements of the accelerated expansion programme. An interim supply was accordingly ordered from America. Production by British firms is now proceeding satisfactorily. No machine guns for aircraft have been ordered from Sweden.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does not the fact that these orders for machine guns have been placed abroad indicate

that there was a serious failure to foresee requirements?

Mr. De la Bère: Is not this a similar question to the one I put to the Secretary of State for War? Where is the Secretary of State for War?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: May I have an answer to my supplementary question?

Sir T. Inskip: I should have thought that the answer is that the hon. and gallant Member may draw his own inference.

SCOTLAND.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he is satisfied that the air defence forces in the East of Scotland, especially in the Firth of Forth area, are adequate; and whether he will take steps to reassure public opinion in this regard?

Sir T. Inskip: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to him on 2nd February on this subject.

Mr. Mathers: Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman will not deal with this matter and try to give some reassurance to the people in the area, and an indication to Scotland generally, that she is getting a fair deal? Is London the only place which the Government think of defending?

Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Member referred to Turnhouse and Donibristle, and of course they are included in the general defences of the whole country.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland there are only two anti-aircraft units established, and will he say whether one of the two is established in the East of Scotland?

Sir T. Inskip: I do not think the hon. Member is accurate, but if he will put a question down I will try to give him an answer.

Mr. H. G. Williams: May I ask whether all hon. Members for the East of Scotland voted for the Defence Estimates?

WHEAT STORAGE.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he will consider the practicability of instituting, in co-operation with the millers, some scheme whereby additional storage


accommodation for wheat could be provided adjacent to the mills, so that with some financial assistance from the Government the millers might hold larger stocks of wheat than they are in the habit of doing at present?

Sir T. Inskip: I will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give particulars of any alterations in the budget of Kenya Colony in respect of education, medical, and public services, and the increase in expenditure on the Defence forces, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: By "public services" the hon. Member, no doubt, has in mind those services which contribute particularly to the health and social welfare of the population. A variety of the services performed by Government in Kenya fall within this class, but taking only the four departments of education, medical services, agriculture and veterinary services, the provision for the current year shows an increase on last year of £28,966. The estimated increase for Defence is £20,926.

Mr. Day: Has there been any correspondence between Great Britain and Kenya on these alterations?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the representations from Indians in respect to the proposed Order-in-Council confining the Kenya-European Highlands to Europeans; and whether he still proposes to prohibit the purchase of land by Indians in this area?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The views of the Indian community in Kenya have received consideration in connection with the proposal to issue an Order-in-Council defining the boundaries of the Kenya Highlands. I have decided that there can be no change in the administrative practice which has been followed for the past 30 years in regard to the acquisition of land in that area, but there is nothing in the draft Order-in-Council on this point.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will there not be administrative discrimination against the Indians and are not Indians considerably disturbed at the present moment in regard to this matter? Is it not a fact that, as far as derelict farms are concerned, Portuguese, Germans and Italians may purchase land, but that Indian subjects of the British Empire are prohibited from doing so?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Not in the Order-in-Council. That has been the practice of all Governments since the Liberal Government of 1906. It has been carried out by every successive Secretary of State, and I am going to make no alteration.

Mr. Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the Government of India in this matter, and will he give proper weight to their opinion?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir, the Government of India have been kept fully informed, and they fully understand that no change in policy is to be adopted.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA.

CATTLE LOADING AND UNLOADING.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the loading and unloading of cattle at Apapa and Accra in West Africa involves suffering and cruelty through the lifting of cattle by the horns; and whether he will take steps to prevent this?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will ask the Governors of Nigeria and the Gold Coast for a report on the matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as it is received.

Mr. Sorensen: Am I to understand from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman is not as yet aware of this practice? Is he not aware that photographs exist, and have been reproduced in the Press, depicting this very unfortunate and cruel practice?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The only information I have of it is one photograph in one newspaper, and when and where that photograph was taken, I do not know. That is why there is to be an inquiry.

COCOA GROWING.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will


make a statement concerning the present operation of the cocoa pool agreement: and what steps he is taking to meet the dissatisfaction among native farmers and traders arising therefrom, and the measure of active discontent now operating?

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement about the present difficulties of the cocoa trade on the Gold Coast?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I made a short statement on this subject in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 16th December, and the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 22nd December. There is little change in the situation to report. The farmers in Nigeria have continued to sell their cocoa freely, and the farmers in the Gold Coast with very few exceptions have held their cocoa up.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman himself promoting any action in this respect? Is he in communication with the Governors of the Gold Coast and Nigeria?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir, I am, and I hope to make a further statement on this soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA (MUI TSAI).

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by the Governments of the various parts of British Malaya to put into operation the minority report of the recent Mui Tsai Commission?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In the Straits Settlements draft legislation is now being prepared and the Governor very rightly proposes to publish for local information full and careful explanations of the action contemplated before the legislation is introduced. As regards the Malay States the High Commissioner in his speech to the Federal Council in November urged the adoption in the Federated Malay States of a similar policy to that decided upon in the Straits Settlements.

Mr. Lunn: Are we to be made acquainted with this proposed legislation? Are we to be supplied with copies of it?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly, as soon as it is drafted.

Oral Answers to Questions — BARBADOS.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has given consideration to the social and economic condition of the people of Barbados as recently reported on by the Commission which inquired into the disturbances of last summer; whether, in view of the plight of the labouring sections of the population, immediate steps are being taken to carry through the recommendations of the Commission; and whether a labour adviser will be appointed and attention given to the enactment of an adequate protective labour code?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am awaiting the considered proposals of the local Government on the recommendations of the Commission, to which the hon. Member refers, but I have written to the Acting Governor requesting him to expedite the submission of these proposals. I understand that he intends to bring before the Legislature at an early date proposals for the appointment of a labour officer, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. I would remind the hon. Member that the Barbados constitution provides for representative self-government, and eventual action is dependent on the assent of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the necessity for immediate action, will the right hon. Gentleman make special representations that something should be done without delay?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have made representations, but I have no power.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. Perkins: On a point of Order. Would it not be possible to have a change made in the order of questions which would be for the convenience of the House? I understand the present arrangement to be that Air Ministry questions are asked on Wednesdays, and that they come fourth in order on the Paper. There have been many occasions in the past when some of those questions have not been reached. To-day not one of them has been reached. Would it not be possible to alter the present arrangement so that questions about air matters could be asked in the House? Would it not be


possible, for instance, to put them in the third place on Mondays instead of questions addressed to the Ministry of Pensions?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has my sympathy in the question which he raises. If arrangements can be made by which questions addressed to the Air Ministry can be called upon without inconvenience to others, we shall try to do it. The matter can be dealt with through the usual channels.

Captain P. Macdonald: Would not the claim of my hon. Friend be satisfied if we arranged that Air Ministry questions and Colonial Office questions should be taken on alternate Wednesdays?

Sir P. Harris: As there are hundreds of millions of people concerned in the questions which are addressed to the Colonial Office, are they not entitled at least to one day in the week?

Mr. Kirkwood: Why not arrange to have the questions about air matters put down for Friday? That will test the hon. Members concerned.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: Is it not a fact that there has been an extraordinary increase in the number of Supplementary questions during the past six months?

Mr. T. Williams: Does not the problem at the moment arise out of the fact that this is the second week of this part of the Session, and not the 17th?

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that if we come to a satisfactory arrangement as regards the order in which questions are to be asked, all those matters will be taken into consideration.

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1937).

Estimate presented,—of a further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1938 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 45.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had

discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Colonel Mason; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hutchinson.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Hire-Purchase Bill): Sir John Smedley Crooke; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. H. G. Williams.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

STORAGE OF FOOD IN TIME OF WAR.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Parker: I beg to move,
That, having regard to the experience gained in the Great War and the necessity for avoiding or minimising similar risks in any future emergency, this House is of opinion that, in addition to mailing provision for an adequate supply of essential foodstuffs in this country. His Majesty's Government should forthwith undertake the building of new or the extension of existing storage plant in suitable places immune from air-attack, and make plans for an efficient scheme of national distribution.

This Motion was drawn up in a form in which it was hoped it would receive the unanimous support of those Members who are interested in the subject. I am, therefore, rather sorry to find that Amendments have been put down to it. With regard to the first Amendment which stands on the Order Paper—in line 1, to leave out from "That," to the end, and to add:
plans should be made to ensure the maintenance and efficient distribution of adequate national food supplies in time of war; and urges His Majesty's Government to take all appropriate measures for this purpose."—

I cannot see that it in any way clarifies the position. It merely repeats the terms of the Motion in an extraordinarily vague way. The second Amendment on the Paper—in line 3, to leave out from "to," to "in," in line 4, and to insert:
taking whatever steps are necessary to secure a sufficiently-increased production of food."—

would convert this discussion from a Debate on Defence to a Debate on agriculture, and that is not the object of the Motion. The Amendments may be a convenient handle on which Members may be able to hang their speeches, but I hope that when it comes to the question of a decision they will not be pressed, so that it will be possible to rally all sections of opinion in the House behind my Motion.

The Motion has arisen out of the public anxiety about the question of food storage and the arrangements made to supply food to the people of this country in time of war. Before the Minister for the Coordination of Defence was appointed two years ago, there was a public outcry that there ought to be co-ordination of all the Defence Forces and interests in this country, and that included the question of the provision of food in time of war. As far

as I can make out from the record of the Minister, during the two years he has been in office nothing has been done, and I think it is high time that he gave a full account of his stewardship for those two years. On 21st May, 1936, three months after his appointment the Minister said in this House that a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence had been appointed
to consider the all-important question of food in war time, and everyone will recognise that the moment you begin to speak of food you are involved in questions of transport, of storage, of distribution and ultimately of production of home-grown supplies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1936; col. 1396, Vol. 312.]

Yet 14 months later, on 27th July, 1937, he said that they had experts investigating the matter, but that proposals had not yet been either rejected or accepted by the Government. It took 14 months to consider the matter, and nothing was done in that period. Between last July and the autumn public opinion on the matter grew, and in December the Government were forced to deal with that public opinion to some extent, and they appointed two sub-committees. The first was the Food Defence Plans Department of the Board of Trade, set up in that month, and the second was the Ports and Transit Committee of the Ministry of Transport, created in order to formulate plans for the possible diversion of seaborne traffic in time of war. While on that last subject, I would like to press one point home, and that is that that Committee contains no members of the trade unions which would be concerned if that Committee had to function in time of war. During the last War a similar committee did contain representatives of the trade unions concerned, who gave very valuable service to their country. The Minister of Transport was asked whether he would consider appointing members of the trade unions concerned to that Committee, but as yet he has given no definite reply, and we would like to know why.

What are the relations between these two sub-Committees, and what are their relations to the Minister for the Coordination of Defence? Further, what are the relations of the Ministry of Agriculture, as far as it is concerned with the production of food, with the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence? So far as one can see there is no co-ordination taking place at all. We on this side


believe that some Minister at least should be responsible for pulling the whole thing together and for seeing that there is a co-ordination of activities. We do not ask to have details as to where food is being stored, but we have a right to know what the Government's policy is on this subject. We also have a right to know what main form of food they are proposing to store. We ought to have a general report on progress and how far they are carrying out a policy, if they have a policy. I do not believe that knowledge on this subject would in any way be a national danger. I believe that if you were to tell people that you were providing for the storage of food in the country for a year or some other period, if there was danger of an attack on the country, it would help to deter aggression, because it would help to show that the country had made certain preparations for such an emergency.

In the last two years there have been 49 questions put down in this House to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, trying to find out what his policy is. The Minister has noted suggestions that Members have made. He has not given any answer as to what the policy of the Government is, but he has very successfully stone-walled during the whole of that time. I have heard the creation of these two small departments, one at the Board of Trade and the other at the Ministry of Transport, described, in relation to the Ministry for the Coordination of Defence, as a mountain having brought forth two small mice, but I think that is rather an unfair '"ay of describing the policy, as I doupt very much whether the mountain is responsible for the parentage of even these two small bodies.

What exactly is the problem which we have to consider? I do not propose to go into the difficulties which we had to face in the last War. There are other Members in the House with practical experience and with far greater knowledge of them than I, but I should like to draw attention to one or two points. First of all, everyone knows that it was the fact that we in this country were able to make better provision for feeding our people and maintaining our morale than was possible in other countries that enabled us to win the War; secondly, we ourselves were brought very near to disaster by the submarine

crisis of February, 1917; thirdly, during the War we had to get the greater part of our food supplies from North America, because we had not got the shipping tonnage to go all the way to Australia and New Zealand to fetch supplies, even when we were able to buy the supplies out there; and, fourthly, in 1918 we reached a very serious animal foodstuffs crisis, because we were not able to get foodstuffs in this country to feed our own livestock.

What is the position to-day? First of all, we have a bigger population than we had in the last War and a smaller merchant fleet; ships to-day are driven by oil rather than by coal, and the oil has to be imported, very largely; the growth of London has been phenomenal since the War; we have had a continual concentration of flour milling for food storage plants at the ports of this country; and, finally, the danger of air attack has become far greater than it was in the last War and has accentuated all the other difficulties which I have mentioned. I would like to dwell on the problem of London particularly. In London we have an enormous congestion of population, we have a river running from the East, with docks and storage plants lying along it which are extraordinarily open to air attack. Should we be at war with a Power which threatened London, it would be practically impossible to get food into the port of London, and London itself is almost entirely fed by food imported through the Port of London. About 60 per cent. of the supply of flour in this country is milled in Greater London, along the waterside. We have in London enormous centralised markets, which attract food supplies to London, and in addition to the fact that London itself is fed almost entirely through the river, a large part of England itself is also fed through the Port of London. Not only is London itself in very great danger, but I would point out that although this problem particularly affects London, it is also a national problem.

What ought to be done to meet this difficulty? I believe we have got to store food to some extent in order to meet the difficulty, and that for two purposes. Partly, there should be, I think, an emergency supply, which would last at least six weeks, to safeguard us against any sudden attack or interference with our normal supplies. Secondly, we should


make arrangements for the provision of food for a long struggle. The two aspects of the question are not necessarily contradictory. I shall explain later a certain number of precautions that have to be taken for a long-distance policy, though they will not be required for a short policy. A problem that requires special attention is the storage of animal feed. A great many Members of this House, particularly those who sit for agricultural constituencies, do not realise the actual position this country is in at the moment. Since the War British agriculture has become very largely a processing industry. The result is that to-day the actual tonnage of food produced in this country is only about equal to the tonnage of raw material that is imported to produce that food.

Some figures were given in a very interesting article in the "Spectator "by Mr. Colin Clark. The total tonnage of British agricultural output in 1934 was 9,863,000 tons, and the imported raw materials used to feed the cattle and so on, in order to produce that food, were 9,875,000 tons. In other words, if war started to-morrow it would pay us to close down agriculture altogether, taking the question broadly, and to import finished food rather than import raw materials to produce that food. Of course the finished product is worth much more than the raw material. Even in the last War we were placed in considerable difficulties with regard to the importing of cattle cake and other things of that kind. The position to-day is very different from that of 1914, because, as I have said, British agriculture has now become almost entirely a processing industry.

What should we do about that? I think we should try to store up six months' feed for cattle in this country so that we would be able to carry on in the early days of an emergency before making arrangements for a change-over in agricultural production. We should store up fertilisers for at least a year. We should encourage the production of potatoes, vegetables, and milk and things of that kind which do not depend upon the imported raw material. Also we should encourage the production and use of British feeding stuffs, roots and so on. On this point we on this side of the House cannot support any food policy which is going to reduce the standard of

life of the great masses of the people. There is very great danger that we may be stampeded into supporting some policy which would increase the cost of living of the ordinary citizen. We have to remember that Sir John Orr pointed out that there are approximately 13,000,000 people in this country who do not get sufficient to supply them with a reasonable standard of nutrition. We cannot possibly accept any policy which is going to reduce the standard of living.

What are the present stocks of food in this country and what is the possibility of increasing them? Of wheat there is perhaps six weeks' supply. Wheat can be stored very easily, especially as flour. Of fats, butter, lard and so on, possibly we have two or three weeks' supply. There again it is possible to build up a considerable supply. Of sugar we have very little. That is stored very easily. Of tea we have a certain amount. There is no storage of fish in ordinary times, but we could lay up a supply of dried fish. Potatoes are normally stored on the farms. In the autumn we are well supplied but in the spring there is practically none. As practically the whole crop is produced in this country we cannot do a great deal of storage in that case. Of frozen meat we have perhaps a fortnight's supply, but we could build up a very much larger supply than that. Chilled meat cannot be stored. In the case of canned goods the normal practice is for canners to carry a year's store, but they could store up quite considerable supplies. I understand that so far as canned goods are concerned the deterioration of stocks of fruit such as plums is about 1 per cent. in the first year and about 5 per cent. in the second year. That is not very large. In the case of canned vegetables the deterioration is very much less. With regard to things like peas, maize and rice, we have very small reserves. Again we could build up considerable supplies.

Storage is mostly at the ports, except in the case of home-produced foods such as potatoes. With regard to cold storage plants, at present we have 50,000,000 cubic feet available in this country, of which only 30,000,000 cubic feet are in use. I have here a statement with regard to cold storage plants in this country. It shows that a very large proportion indeed of these plants is in London; 23,140,000


cubic feet are to be found in London along the Thames. There are other large plants at Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Hull, Southampton and so on. So far as the use of this existing cold storage plant is concerned, I do not think one can recommend even the full use of the facilities available along the Thames. I believe that we must, as far as possible, remove the storage of food away from ports in the south-east or the eastern parts of the country. Stores should be established at big towns inland.

So far as London is concerned, supplies should be built up on a ring in outer London, away from the river. Supplies should be built up also at Western ports. Particularly we should make full use of existing plants at Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol and Cardiff, where there are already very large storage plants in existence. In addition we should need extra storage plants at ports where now there is no cold storage at all, at Penzance, Falmouth, Milford Haven, Holyhead, Workington and places of that kind. If we are to be without interference with supplies, we need storage plant in the extreme west of the country so that we can get food in easily and there store it. In the last War, during the time of the submarine crisis, convoys came into Mounts Bay and the ships there received orders where they were to go to unload. For there was no storage plant at all at Mounts Bay. On one day 14 ships reported, and of these 11 never reached their destinations because they were sunk on their way from Mounts Bay to other ports. That would have been overcome entirely even in the last War, had there been storage facilities at places like Penzance, Falmouth, Milford Haven and so on.

To guard against a similar difficulty in future we should supply these storage facilities now. That means not only the provision of storage in these ports but also the provision of satisfactory communications from those places to the centres of population in the country. That primarily means good roads, because railways can be more easily interfered with than roads by bombing planes. Good roads should be provided by the Government from these western ports to the centres of population. A Severn bridge would probably be necessary, though that could be bombed from

the air; but being in the west it is not so likely to be bombed. As part of the policy of storage I think the Government should now attempt to decentralise markets in this country and see that the present markets are in convenient places near the main depots of food.

Who should own the plant that would have to be erected? Where there is existing plant and it requires extension the present firms should be asked to extend it as part of the general national plan, but where there is no plant existing and firms are not prepared to provide it, the Government themselves should build bonded warehouses, cold storage plant and so on. That would mean that in the ports in the Far West the Government would probably have to provide all the facilities required, because it would not pay any particular firm at the present time to provide them. Who should own the food put into these warehouses and storage plants? I believe that the Government would have to finance private stocks in these bonded warehouses or in the cold storage plants. They could do that quite easily by making advances on the security of the goods stored. That is done successfully in the United States now, by the Lawrence Warehousing Company, a very big concern.

There should be a continual turnover to prevent deterioration of food. That is absolutely essential. Also the Government should see that there was not any unloading of large stocks of food on the market at any particular time. They would have to allow that only with the permission of the Food Defence Plan Department. Finally, the Government would have to take full responsibility for winding up the scheme if at any time it became unnecessary. With regard to the plant in the Western ports, quite obviously that would not be used in peace time. It should be created now and kept so that it could be filled immediately an emergency arose. Plants in big industrial towns inland should be used now, and the new markets that I have mentioned should make use of these storage facilities.

What food should we store? The Government obviously have to decide on the best technical advice they can obtain. The important thing to remember is that it does not matter very much which food


you store, provided you store considerable supplies of some of the foods, because, should there be an emergency, you then have your ships free to fetch more perishable foods. This question of food storage is part of the whole problem of defence. It is linked up with the import and storage of industrial raw materials, oil for ships and motor cars, and the question of the evacuation of the population in time of war from London to the West. Also, of course, it is related to the question of air-raid precautions. What we want to know is, is the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence co-ordinating food storage with all these other problems, or not?

What must be the cost of the schemes which I have been putting forward? Compared with the cost of the armaments programme in which the country is now engaged, I estimate that it would not be more than 1 or 2 per cent. of the expenditure of this year. That is a very small sum. Surely we can afford to spend it when we are spending so much on building up these supplies of arms. We on this side believe that the question of Defence should come first and that defensive weapons should come before aggressive weapons. We believe that, looking at it from a purely military point of view, and leaving humanitarian considerations out of account, the maintenance of the morale of the population is the first thing necessary in time of war, and that cannot possibly be done unless there is adequate food provided for the people. We believe the Government have neglected the whole defensive side of the programme in favour of the aggressive side. In the past the British Navy owed a great deal of its popularity to the fact that it was looked upon by the common people as a body engaged in the defence of the country to a far greater extent than the Army; it was a body that prevented invasion. We cannot look on the Navy entirely from that point of view to-day, because weapons have changed, but the people of this country still want Defence. They look upon Defence as the most important thing. We therefore ask the Government to put first things first, and to see that we have adequate food storage and take proper precautions to defend the people of this country.

4.17 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I beg to second the Motion.
I wish to associate myself with the expression of anxiety to which my hon. Friend has given words. There is no doubt whatever that in this country there is a feeling of the greatest anxiety about this matter. What are the Government doing? Are they doing anything at all adequate? This anxiety was not allayed by recent experience in connection with the air-raid precautions Debates in which it was shown that this country is lamentably lagging behind other countries on the Continent of Europe. It is obvious that this country has to be prepared to act very quickly with regard to food in the event of war, because the military experts tell us that another war will be begun before it is declared. The first we shall know about it will be the air-raid warnings going off and the organisations for defence being put into operation. Let us hope that by that time it really exists. The food organisation will need to be put into operation by the pressing of a button. There must be food control, food distribution, decentralisation of markets or the substitution of existing civilian ports by ports to be used in time of war. All those plans must be working, not absolutely automatically, but very rapidly within 24 hours.
Food is probably even more vital than air-raid precautions, because while people can be killed by bombs, gas and fires, only a certain number will be killed in that way, whereas if the population is not fed all the people will be killed. I have the most vivid recollection of going to Vienna and Budapest in the months immediately succeeding the Armistice and seeing there the result, largely on the children, of our blockade. The disastrous results of the lack of food on those populations have remained engraved on my mind to the present time, and I realise that if our country does not have food we may suffer the same terrible tragedy. That must not be allowed in any circumstances to come upon us.
I should like to ask why the right hon. Gentleman has not hitherto given information on this subject, because it would appear, from indications which have appeared in the Press, that the information is ready. There appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" of 27th January an interesting and important article giving many details with regard to food storage and defence. There appeared in the


"Times" of 28th and 29th January two admirably informed articles dealing with the same subject. When questioned in the House the other day, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence disclaimed knowledge of the "Daily Telegraph" article. If in that article words mean what they generally mean, they can only mean that the person who wrote the article obtained the information from a person whom he was convinced had the exact facts of the situation. Why cannot those facts be given to the House? Why is this indirect method of giving information to the country being pursued, not only by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but by others? What is his idea of having journalistic freedom of statement and ministerial irresponsibility at the same time? Both the "Times" and the "Daily Telegraph" agree on the details of the statement. They talk about the proportions of food which were imported into this country, the calorie value of home-produced food, the division of the country into districts, the method of food control and of rationing, prices, numbers of markets and ports, in fact, the whole details of a food defence plan. Would it not be better if the Government made a statement of this kind to the House rather than through the daily papers? It would be much more to the point if we had that information before us.
We do not ask for all the details. We do not want the points on the map indicated for the convenience of anyone attacking this country, but we want to know that the Government are really tackling this question in an adequate way. My hon. Friend has dealt with the question of how long a period food would be required. I do not propose to deal with that in detail. It is often assumed that we should require food for a 12 months' period, not because an emergency would last for that period, but in order to have an adequate reserve. What is more important is how rapidly a defence plan can be put into operation. We certainly will not have a big margin. We shall want wheat, or its equivalent, fats, meat, eggs and feeding stuffs and, of course, canned goods, which are an important item. I do not propose to say anything on the question of agriculture. It is not because we on this side of the House do not want the products of agriculture in this country

to increase, but because we do not think that this defence problem will be helped by the production of agriculture being stimulated at the present time. If a war suddenly breaks out, we shall not have time to grow foodstuffs, and we shall perhaps not have time to get in the harvests and use the crops which are in the fields. Professor Stapledon, who has gone into this matter exhaustively, agrees with this point of view, although he is an advocate of an increased acreage of pasturage.
In thinking of the question of storage there are one or two considerations that have not been mentioned. The storage must be safe, not only from high explosive bombardment, but from gas bombardment. The spoilage of food by mustard gas is perhaps a more important aspect of air warfare than injury to the civilian population by mustard gas. At a big depot of food mustard gas bombs could contaminate a large proportion of it, and it would be difficult for anyone to say whether any of it was safe to use. That is a special problem which has to be tackled. Then there is the question of the use of the incendiary bomb in regard to food supplies. I recently paid a visit to Paris and Berlin to get an idea of what they were doing in air-raid precautions, and I got information that both the French and the Germans were thinking that in time of war they might be attacked a long way behind their lines by incendiary bombs and gas bombs. The object of the incendiary bombs would be to burn the crops and destroy the pasturage and farmhouses, and the object of the mustard bombs would be to contaminate the crops and herds. If that kind of thing is being seriously considered by other countries, it increases the urgency for the provision of food storage and lessens the importance of agriculture during an emergency.
Then there is the question of the provision of food on the evacuation of a population. The inner city of Paris, with a population of 3,000,000, has an elaborate, accurate and well-worked-out plan, which I have seen, for the evacuation of 2,000,000 of those people. We should certainly require to evacuate from London at least 2,000,000 people, and probably more in time of war; otherwise, they would simply be targets for attack. Food for these people must be provided. There is an important food which has not yet been mentioned, known as water. If there is not an adequate water supply


arrangements for the evacuation of the population will not be successful. The more one considers it the more definite it becomes that the question of air-raid precautions, of the dispersal of the population, of food storage, of food control, and all those matters which may be classified as passive defence, ought to be considered together.
I suggest that all these non-aggressive methods of passive defence might very well be grouped together under one separate Ministry dealing with the whole subject. There will be an important addition in the sense that any large numbers of the population evacuated to outside areas will require to have elaborate sanitary services provided for them. Otherwise there will be serious danger. That necessity adds to the need of co-ordinating all these services under one ministerial head. We should then have the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the passive defence services in the hands of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence as the Minister responsible for them and for organising all the defensive measures. The question of food storage is certainly one of the most vital aspects of passive defence. We do not want details, but we want the Government to give a definite and clear-cut statement of policy which will be to the whole of the people of this country—for this is no party matter—a real reassurance that something is being done, and which, because it is a reassurance to the people, will be a deterrent to any enemy who is thinking of attacking because he will know that we are prepared.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, m line 1, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
plans should be made to ensure the maintenance and efficient distribution of adequate national food supplies in time of war; and urges His Majesty's Government to take all appropriate measures for this purpose.
May I, first of all, say with what great interest, and with how wide a measure of agreement, I personally, and I believe every other Member of the House, listened to the two speeches which have just been made. I should like to assure the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) that those of us who are interested in this Amendment join with him in regarding this as no party matter, and if the Amendment may appear to

suggest a rather frivolous change, I can assure him that it does not so appear to us, and that we would have put forward an Amendment in the same terms if the Motion had come from this side of the House. I should like, also, to assure both hon. Members that I am in entire agreement with them in regard to a great part of the references they made to agricultural development at home, but like them, I will not deal with that in any great detail, and will pass on to the main question of storage in time of war. It is a matter of very great satisfaction that on a subject of this kind we in this House can be united to try to take such steps as we can in order to make certain that should we be involved in a war we shall not be brought to our knees through a breakdown in the production or distribution of food.
It may seem to some Members that the Motion fittingly summarises the point of view of nearly every Member of the House, but to many of us it goes far too far, in that it puts upon the Government the obligation to undertake the building of new, or the extension of existing, storage plant, quite without regard to how the Government may view the question of food storage in relation to the general problem of national Defence as a whole. If we were certain as to the outbreak of hostilities, even more if we could name with any accuracy the date when we might be involved in war, a great many of the arguments put forward by the two hon. Members would have application; but we are living in times of peace, however chaotic the conditions of the world may be, and we have to submit now a policy which we can reconcile with the needs of peace; and that does raise a great many practical difficulties which some of us think the advocates of food storage on a large scale have scarcely fully grasped. As I think both hon. Members will agree, storage does not mean security, but storage may well be one element in security, and I personally regard this Amendment as in no sense ruling out food storage, even on an ambitious scale if need be, but leaving it to the Government of the day to consider each element of defence in relation to all the needs of defence as a whole.
We feel that if the House came to the conclusion which is implicit in the Motion it would be unnecessarily tying the hands of His Majesty's Government, and not


leaving them free to consider each aspect of Defence in relation to Defence problems as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has made is perfectly plain that he, and the Government with him, would view with immense relief the existence in this country of adequate supplies of food which would enable us to surmount temporary difficulties at the start of a war, and I think we can safely say that the needs of storage and all other means of ensuring plentiful food supplies have not been forgotten in a rearmament and Defence programmee the magnitude of which has staggered the country.
I feel that there are practical difficulties which have not yet been fully explained in this House. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) has played a very distinguished part, not only during the War but since, in pressing upon the minds of his countrymen the need of preparedness in the matter of national Defence. In an article which he wrote a little time ago, and which appeared in the "Economist," he compared the situation in this country to the situation of Joseph, who had his dream of lean times and defective harvests, and said:
Our problem is precisely the same.
It is on that point mainly that I would join issue with him. Joseph knew with certainty—accepting the dream as an authentic revelation—that he must prepare for lean times and defective harvests. If we were certain that we are going to be involved in an international conflagration, quite naturally a number of considerations which must be uppermost in our minds to-day would cease to have very much reality. We are not in the position of Joseph in the difficulties with which we are now confronted; of course, our position is really the reverse. If war were certain we could plan accordingly. As we live in times of peace we have to reconcile safety and solvency, and there are certain considerations which ought to be brought to the attention of the House.

Mr. Kirkwood: It was Pharaoh who had the dream.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Joseph had the vision and Pharaoh dreamed the dream. The first aspect of the matter to be

brought to the attention of the House is the cost. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) glided rather skilfully over the cost. He let it be thought that it would represent such a tithe of the great expenditure already incurred that it could be accepted by this House with relative indifference. I think everybody agrees that the magnitude of the defence problem has staggered and, indeed, depressed multitudes of our people, but the fact that we are involved in this heavy expenditure is no reason why we should come to the conclusion that the expenditure of £50,000,000 here and £50,000,000 there, without regard to its contribution to Defence, will not hurt us very much. Secondly, those hon. Members altogether overlooked the dislocation which storage of food on a big scale would involve to the ordinary trade and distributive channels.

Sir Arthur Salter: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of £50,000,000, I take it that he means capital expenditure and not annual expenditure?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was referring mainly to the capital expenditure on erecting silos and granaries and purchasing the initial stocks. Secondly, neither hon. Member mentioned the dislocation of existing avenues of distribution which such an ambitious scheme would involve. The hon. Member for Romford did mention my third point, the possible effect on the cost of living; but neither he nor his colleague dealt very adequately with the fourth aspect, the need for liquidation of these immense stocks and how and when it would be accomplished. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University will, I am sure, acquit me of any impertinence, as he is my own representative, if I say that after reading his article in the "Economist" I was left completely vague as to how he imagines those stocks are going to be liquidated and how he thinks the ordinary trade of the country—should peace continue—is going to bear the competition of the Government buying and the dislocation involved.
His scheme, ambitious though it is, is not quite so ambitious as another scheme put forward in another quarter of the House in which it was suggested that two years' supply of food should be acquired and stored in this country. To agricultural Members like myself it may


seem an attractive proposition to acquire—if possible mainly from our own fields—such a substantial proportion of our needs in the early days of war, but a little analysis of the figures will, I think, throw new light upon that problem. We consume in this country every year from £1,100,000,000 to £1,200,000,000 worth of foodstuffs, and of this £600,000,000 worth is imported. To put on one side two years' supply of imports would involve an expenditure of £1,200,000,000 in one year. Is it seriously suggested that the case has been made out for regarding food storage as such an essential part of the defence weapon as to justify expenditure on that scale, beside which the annual expenditure on all the defence services dwindles in comparison?

Mr. T. Williams: Is the hon. Member giving the figure paid by the ultimate consumer of the food or a figure which represents what the producer of the food receives?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The figures represent "value at port"; and when I develop my main argument I shall refer to those figures. That huge expenditure on the acquisition, and solely on the acquisition, of the commodities themselves leaves out of account altogether the cost of building the silos or the granaries and the annual cost of maintenance. It leaves out of account the diversion of men and materials to this other activity from work on the armaments programme which many of us regard as more important. If we were certain that we were going to be involved in war, no question of solvency would stand in the way. If we knew for certain that Armageddon would come again, as it would bring in its train insolvency anyhow, naturally there would be no need to worry much about great expenditure at this moment, but many of us are not satisfied that, viewing our defence needs as a whole, a case has yet been made out which would justify us in demanding of the Government that they should forthwith embark upon an ambitious policy of building granaries for food storage.
The hon. Member for Romford did refer to wheat, but not in any great detail, and I should like to give certain figures which I believe to be accurate, and on which I shall be prepared to contend with the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). Assuming that the price of

wheat is £8 to £10 a ton, assuming that the annual consumption is 7,500,000 tons, the cost of the purchase of a year's supply of wheat would be in the neighbourhood of £70,000,000. I do not know what figure hon. Members who are in favour of this policy have in mind as the cost of the construction of the silos per ton, but I do not think they would regard it as unreasonable to assume that for every ton stored the silos might well cost £5. Assuming you wanted to find storage capacity for 6,000,000 tons, not an excessive requirement, you would be called upon to find a further £30,000,000 for the construction of silos in excess of the capacity existing to-day, and that would bring the total expenditure in one year—provided the buildings could be erected in a year—on the storage of wheat alone up to £100,000,000.
The hon. Member for Romford followed out his general theme of food storage by referring to the cost of living. I ask the House to consider this proposition. Assuming the Government went into the market and bought wheat on that vast scale—even if they were buying it, as suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford University two years ago, at the relatively cheaper figure then—what would be the effect on the cost of living? With the Government in the market for such immense purchases the price would immediately rise, up would go the cost of our rearmament programme, up would go the cost of living, and along would come the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) with another cost-of-living petition. In 1931 the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues joined with all those experts and other who believed that a return to the 1929 price-level was desirable, and even Sir Walter Layton, not unassociated with the Press of the right hon. Gentleman's party, made a public declaration in the columns of the "Economist" that a restoration of prices to the 1929 level was one of the prime duties of the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman had forgotten all about those speeches when he brought the cost-of-living petition to the House last week, and many think that despite his association with the hon. Member for Oxford University and his enthusiastic adoption of the policy of food storage, though the huge increase in the cost-of-living will escape him at the time that later on, if a petition is presented, he will forget the speeches he is now making.
The dislocation of the normal avenues of distribution, the uncertainty as to the intentions of the Government, the vast amount of wheat or other commodities which might be hanging over a market, are all considerations which though they do not justify the Government ruling out food storage, or even ruling out the storage of wheat on a big scale, do raise issues with which, I think, many hon. Members are not acquainted and which do not cease to exist merely by being ignored.

On the question of wheat, I would point out to the hon. Member who supported this Motion that it might well be that the normal trader, seeing the Government interesting themselves on such a scale in the purchase and storage of wheat, might drift out of it, and that the net result might be a decline in the amount of wheat stored in England, instead of being an increase, as was the object to be brought about. I would ask the hon. Member who proposed the Motion when he would liquidate this huge supply of wheat. Assuming that the wheat would last for 12 months and must be turned over at the end of that period, does he propose, while the policy of the Government continues to keep us free, as we believe it will, of foreign entanglements and war, that this turning over process must take place every year? It is difficult enough in the case of wheat, but it is far more difficult in the case of other commodities like bacon or beef. Referring to beef, the hon. Member said that it does not very much matter because you could not store chilled beef and there was no point in building up a supply of it; but presumably beef is one of the commodities which must be stored. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Would the hon. Member store bacon instead of beef?

Dr. Guest: I merely want to ask from where the hon. Member gets his remarkable figure of £1,200,000,000. Out of consideration for other Members who wish to speak I did not mention a good many of the subjects which the hon. Member has suggested I might have mentioned. The figure which I had in my mind of the capital cost of these things was something in the nature of £100,000,000.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have studied this question in a small way, and have envisaged food storage on the scale that he has in mind. Assuming that beef and bacon are to be stored, that chilled beef would be stored and frozen beef must be stored—something life one-fifth of the beef consumed in this country is frozen—for one week's reserve we should have to carry, in a repository for the storage of beef, five times as large a supply as we are likely to need for one one week's consumption. If this policy were adopted on a big scale, the Government would gradually become more and more involved in the problems of buying and selling, and I can see no solution to that situation unless the Government became the sole buying and selling authority in foodstuffs in the land, as proposed in the Socialist policy of import boards.
Out of consideration for other Members who wish to speak I cannot deal with the question of home agriculture but I would, in passing, throw out the reminder that in 1914 we had no home sugar industry to speak of, and that to-day we have a home sugar industry which produces about one-third of all our sugar requirements. It has been bitterly opposed by many people, and not least by some of those who are active in promoting this policy of storage. We believe that it will not only be when an emergency arises in the campaign months of October, November and December, but throughout the whole year, that the great mass of the people of this country will be very grateful for the initiation of a policy of home-production of sugar. Nor will that gratitude be limited solely to employers of labour who are enabled to keep their men in employment, but will be shared by those who have secured jobs.
It seems to me that the assumption behind this proposal is that in another war we must inevitably be in a state of seige, and that we must lose control of the sea. If we lose control of the sea it will not only be foodstuffs that we shall not be able to import, but a great variety of other essential commodities. If we lose control of the sea we have virtually lost the war. I will not weary the House with a series of figures, but there is a general impression in this country that our shipping tonnage has declined. Taking the Empire tonnage as a whole, we are in the same position as we were in


1914, with the advantage of faster and bigger ships, and there are more facilities in the ships and in the harbours. We are in a position to deal with the rapid discharge of food cargoes more safely and expeditiously than we could before the War. I should like to draw attention to the point that although we are, ton by ton, in a stronger position than we were in 1914, taking the Empire as a whole, yet our relative world position has lamentably declined. The United States have increased their merchant shipping since the War four times, Japan, Italy and Germany twice and France and Holland nearly twice. It is only in this country that there is an unfavourable comparison with the figure of 1914.
At the beginning of this century, 50 per cent. of the shipping of the world flew the flag of Great Britain; to-day only 26 or 27 per cent. flies that flag. I would like to conclude with a quotation from the speech of the father of the present Prime Minister. It was made in 1903 and shows with what forethought and shrewdness he viewed the future problems of the age. He was answering an objector who said at that moment the merchant shipping of England was the best in the world. He answered:
It is not what we have. The question is how long shall we keep it and how much shall we get of it. We are like a man in a race. He starts with a great advantage. He has been given 100 yards start, but in the first lap he falls 50 yards behind. Then he is seen by an observer in the Cobden Club who says, 'That is my man. He is still leading'.
I am certain that the Government will take into consideration the view of a large number of their supporters that they should be free to consider defence in all its aspects, and not be tied down in a matter of this kind. They will not forget that the Mercantile Marine is a recruiting ground for the Navy and an essential means of transport in time of war. We believe that this is a problem which the Government must consider. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion would say that he would trust some Governments, but is not prepared to trust the present Administration.

Mr. Parker: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thought he would give that reply. Three hundred years ago when Charles II was King of this country, his brother James, who was Duke of

York, asked him whether he considered it safe to go about without an armed guard. King Charles replied, "My guard, brother James, is that no one would kill me to make you King." That applies very much to the situation that arises over the present Motion. The hon. Member who moved it should not think that I do not appreciate the way in which it was done, but I think we can safely trust the solution of these problems to this Administration.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Duggan: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend has given the House in his eloquent speech the reasons why it is impossible for us to accept the original Motion. The hon. Member who moved it will appreciate that there are words in it which it is impossible for us to accept. He states in the Motion that the Government are to
undertake the building of new or the extension of existing storage plant in suitable places immune from air-attack and make plans for an efficient scheme of national distribution.
The proposals in that are incompatible. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion said that it was considered in foreign countries that the policy which we are preparing to adopt is far behind the times, and that in the future aeroplanes would be more useful in disseminating mustard gas and dropping bombs. If that is the case, how are we to find any city or great centre of distribution immune from air attack? It is well enough to talk about a place being immune from air attack, but that can only be something deep underground with no kind of physical feature on the surface indicating to an aeroplane what it was. It cannot be immune from air attack and at the same time a means of distribution from that centre. It cannot be immune from air attack and also be an efficient means of distribution. You would be bound to use railways and roads in that vicinity, and that would give to the enemy aeroplanes an opportunity of discovering the centre where your food was stored.
For that reason we are unable to accept the words suggested in the Motion, and have moved the Amendment. It should be obvious to the House that we are all in favour of the amount of food storage which is possible or desirable for this country, and that there is no division


of opinion at all upon that question. Those who feel that we are in any danger of undergoing a blockade in any imminent war seem to neglect the fact that our sea power position is completely different from what it was in 1914. The next strongest naval power to ourselves in Europe was then in control of bases quite near to our own shores and in the roads which our own ships had to follow. Soon after the outbreak of war that Power was also in control of forces near our own system of communications. To-day there is no menace of that kind and there is no submarine menace comparable to that of 1914. Everybody knows that the submarine is not anything like so great a menace when faced with the system of convoys which was in operation at the end of the War as it was at that time. The menace has been studied, and to a certain extent met. I am not talking of attacks upon completely unarmed merchantmen.
Again, we have not got against us, or potentially against us, any fleet in Europe comparable to the German fleet at the outbreak of war. We might have to send our fleet far off to fight a battle in different circumstances, but, from the point of view of blockade, we are in a far stronger position than we were at that time. For that reason, unless we were faced with circumstances which at the moment do not exist, and to the extent suggested by the Motion, I see no reason why we should embark upon it. Everybody has showed admirable restraint so far in not embarking upon an agricultural Debate, and I hope that that restraint will continue. It is obvious that we cannot look to the Minister for the Coordination of Defence to assist agriculture, and that we must treat these two things as different departments and allow the agricultural Ministry to continue their policy for the revival of that branch of the industry.
It has been suggested that if we were buying stores of food we should be faced with the problem of getting rid of them. Unless there were an actual blockade, and we therefore distributed it, we should always be faced with the problem of unloading those stores of food. The Mover of the Motion said that we could do that in a small way, or very gradually, but if you have a year's supply and you have to get through that supply

before it is worthless, you have to get rid of that supply, no matter how you do it, by a certain time, before you buy next year's supply. Otherwise, you will have an accumulation which you cannot use and which will be worthless. Would those who voice most ardently the grievances of the agricultural industry be glad to know that there was a year's supply of food in this country, which the Government was able, and, indeed, forced, to unload at various uncertain times, to the detriment of the prices which the agriculturist could expect to secure?
The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) questioned the figure of £1,100,000,000 or £1,200,000,000 given by my hon. Friend. That was the value at retail prices of the food consumed in this country in one year. If you are to lay in a stock of food to last a year, you have that figure to go upon. Of course it might be possible for a small buyer to secure that food at lower prices, but, if the British Government is going into the market to purchase supplies of food, it will not be found that prices will fall. On the contrary, when everyone knows that the British Government is going out to secure a year's supply of food, the figure will be, not reduced, but considerably augmented. I do not think I need pursue any further the points that have been made in the Debate, except to say that, while we welcome the idea that food should as far as practicable be stored in sufficient measure in this country, we cannot accept the suggestion of the Motion that, engaged as we are in a great defence programme, we should embark on an expenditure of this kind, which possibly would be unnecessary and almost certainly would be harmful.

5.3 p.m.

Sir A. Salter: I feel sure that Members in all parts of the House are grateful to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) for the use that he has made of his good fortune in the Ballot. By his choice of subject, by the phrasing of his Motion, and by the character of his speech, he has done a great deal to advance a subject which, as I think, is of very great national importance. I rise without hesitation to support the Motion and not the Amendment. I entirely agree with what is included in the Amendment, but I very much disagree with the


exclusion of what the Amendment seeks to exclude. In effect it says, let us leave it to the Government to decide when they like and how they like, without expressing an opinion ourselves, whether there should be food storage. That is exactly what the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has been saying to us for the last 14 months, since the Food (Defence Plans) Department was established. I think the House feels that further postponement of any kind of decision, even on the main principle, with regard to food storage, is really a position that we are scarcely prepared to accept. I think a large number of Members in all parts of the House feel that it is not fair to ask us to go on giving a blank cheque to the Government, without even criticism, on this very vital matter.
Turning to the criticisms that have been made as to food storage, I do not propose to discuss the huge amount that the Mover of the Amendment suggested as the cost of a scheme, because the scheme he mentioned is altogether different from any that I have advocated, or, so far as I am aware, has been proposed by any who have taken a leading part in this matter. I have never contemplated laying up two years' supplies of all kinds of food in this country. What I suggest is that there should be a storage of food of different kinds equivalent in total to the food value of a year's wheat. That could be done gradually. As to the question of cost, I will not weary the House with a number of calculations. I will only say that, while the precise cost would depend upon the kinds of food chosen for storage, an annual charge of about £5,000,000 a year, including in that sum the annual charge with respect to any capital expenditure, would, as I work it out, be sufficient. That would represent something between I and 2 per cent. of our annual defence expenditure.
This is not just an individual guess. I say it after a good deal of consultation, and I may mention that when Lord Astor two years ago was suggesting a food storage plan, he then reckoned the cost of a year's wheat supply at £2,500,000 a year, including the annual charge in respect of capital. Prices have changed somewhat since then, and the kind of scheme I have in mind would include other types of food as well as wheat while including less wheat, so that I think the

figure would be somewhat higher. I have another estimate of £3,500,000. Anyhow, if the House thinks of this problem in terms of an annual charge of something between I and 2 per cent. of our annual defence expenditure, it will have in mind the kind of scheme of which those of us who are advocating this proposal are thinking. I have never suggested, and none of my friends has ever suggested, suddenly buying supplies sufficient for a year, or even half a year. It is quite true that, if anything like that were done, it would have an effect on the cost of living. What we are asking is that plans should be made and that the Government should then watch their opportunity—and there have been very great opportunities in the past, when they could readily have purchased considerable supplies of wheat that would have been of very great value at a very low price. We suggest that they should watch for opportunities of buying supplies of food cheap, and should store them. I entreat the House to dismiss from its mind anything like the vast purchases suggested by the Mover of the Amendment, and the vast dislocation of the cost of living and the system of supply that they would involve.
It has been suggested that we need not worry very much about this matter, because the naval problem is different from what it was in 1914. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) will say a word on this subject. As far as I am concerned, I have never regarded food storage as an alternative to naval strength. I am assuming a strong Navy, but I am not assuming a more complete command of the sea than we had in the last War at the time when our food and shipping position was most serious. It was not at the beginning of the War, but only later, when our command of the sea was complete as far as surface ships were concerned, that we were in this very serious position as to food and shipping. Having regard to all the facts of the situation, and allowing for the fact that we have a somewhat greater ability, perhaps, to deal with submarines, but taking into account also the new and very great danger resulting from the development of the air arm, I venture to say that we cannot assume that we shall have a greater immunity from disturbance of our imports than we experienced last time. That is, I believe, the view of


most of those who are primarily concerned with the naval situation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who was once First Lord of the Admiralty, will say something on this point. I have also had some correspondence with the President of the Navy League, who not only agrees, but ardently agrees, with the advantages from the point of view of the Navy of relieving its task by food storage.
Are we, in these circumstances, prepared, as the Amendment suggests, to leave the matter, without even an expression of opinion, to the decision of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence? I suggest that it is really time there was a decision on the main principle of this question. We have not been unreasonable. We have not asked the Government to say precisely what are their plans, what they are going to buy, and where they are going to store it. But we have been asking for 14 months, since the Food Defence Plans Department was created, whether the Government have decided upon the main principle, and we have received monotonously and invariably the answer, "Not yet." We had that answer on Tuesday of last week, when, as the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) has pointed out, I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not at least give to the House what his Department apparently gave to a newspaper. He said he was not aware of that article, and I then asked him whether he would not at least see in future that the information should be given first to this House. He said, "Most certainly." But I see that yesterday the same paper, the "Daily Telegraph"—I am not criticising it; I congratulate it—again gave an apparently inspired indication of what the right hon. Gentleman is to say to-day. No one who is aware of the phrasing by which a paper in close association with Government Departments indicates on particular occasions that the information it is giving comes from an official source will have any kind of doubt that, on 27th January certainly, and I think yesterday, there was inspiration behind these communications.

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I am responsible for, or inspired, that statement?

Sir A. Salter: No, Sir. I am not for a moment suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman either gave this information himself or was aware that it had been given. I, of course, accept his statement on Tuesday of last week. But I am bound to add that I think this confirms the impression, which is supported by a great deal of other evidence, as to the rather casual, light-hearted relation of himself to the work of his own Department. I venture to say that it is impossible to read that article without feeling that there was communication of information unknown to him. The question, however, that matters is not how well the right hon. Gentleman has treated this House, but how well he has served the country.
To return to this more important subject, I am at a disadvantage in speaking before the right hon. Gentleman announces his policy, as I take it he will this afternoon, and I must do my best to guess. I will express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not say certain things when he comes to make his announcement. I hope he will not suggest, as the "Daily Telegraph" did, that it is really unnecessary to raise the bogey of starvation. The situation is very serious. I do not propose to argue it, but I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that all those outside Government Departments—which cannot express themselves—who can speak with the greatest authority on this subject are agreed as to the extreme gravity of the situation. They include people like Lord Astor, who has spoken on the subject in another place; Sir William Beveridge, who was at the centre of the food supply control during the last War; and those who know most about the shipping position in the last War. I see that the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson) is here, and I think the hon. Member for Southampton (Sir C. Barrie) was here a short time ago. I wish the son of the Shipping Controller—the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay)—were here. All of us who were in that control know that the situation is serious. So do those who were concerned mainly with food production. Hon. Members will have seen the correspondence in the "Times" by Mr. Christopher Turnor, Mr. Macdougall and Prof. Stapledon in the last few days.
It may be that here and there, in detail, the right hon. Gentleman has better information than we have, but I hope he will not try to allege that our main picture is wrong. We are not wrong. I have always, where possible, taken official statements, and where I have had to choose between official statements which did not agree I have taken the one least favourable to myself. When a statement was made by the present Home Secretary, who was at the time First Lord of the Admiralty, in which he said there was only six weeks' supply of food in the country, I said that that overstated the gravity of the situation, and chose instead the more moderate statement made by the Lord Chancellor and the present Lord Runciman. If the Government has information that throws a different light on the position, I can only say, in view of the public statements which have been made by Ministers in the past, that it must be information that, not only we, but they, did not then possess.
In the second place I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he does refer to the question of expense, will put a completely different light on the whole situation from that suggested by the Mover of the Amendment.
I hope next the right hon. Gentleman will not say that the storage of perishable food will mean complete dislocation of the trade of the country. What is he going to do about less perishable food? Is he storing canned goods, oils and fats, and is he storing sugar, which stores well? I agree that he will have to store some foods which will not keep indefinitely, but is it unreasonable to suggest that with wheat, which will store for a year or two, we could simultaneously take some of it out, and put an equal quantity in, without dislocating the market? The difficulties are certainly not insuperable, or even very great. At the same time, I agree that the relative non-perishability of particular commodities is a good reason for storing more of some things than of others. If you have plenty of one commodity, you can easily utilise that sufficiency to remedy quickly an insufficiency of more perishable commodities, by concentrating your shipping upon them in the emergency.
Lastly, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say, "Look at my scheme for

food control throughout the country; that is enough." I agree that it is a good thing to prepare a system for controlling the distribution of food should the necessity arise, but, while you can, in case of necessity, improvise a system for distributing the food you have, what you cannot improvise is a method of getting the food you have not. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be like those ingenious builders of Laputa, satirised by Jonathan Swift, who built the roofs of the houses and forgot to build the foundations.
The essential thing is to secure that the food is here, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not suggest, what the people primarily concerned in the production of food do not themselves suggest, that he can increase home production on a scale which will make food storage unnecessary. I do not want to argue the whole question of our food production policy. Let me refer again to the letters which have appeared in the "Times." No responsible authority is likely to rate the possibilities of food production higher than Mr. Turnor, Mr. Macdougall and Professor Stapledon. I am authorised by each of them to say that he does not regard increased food production as removing the necessity for food storage.
I suggest, therefore, that the authority behind the case for food storage on a considerable scale is really overwhelming. Whether you look to people who had experience in the War in regard to food, or to shipping, or to those who are primarily concerned in agriculture and the production of food, or whether you look to those concerned with the structure and strength of the Navy, the opinion on this is unanimous. I have in the last year been consulting authorities in all these fields. They are utterly unable to understand the attitude of the Government. They are bewildered that the Government has left this for 14 months without doing something. Why is it?
Let me suggest my own answer to this question. In the first place, I think that this subject has not had its proper attention because of the circumstances and conditions under which the Food (Defence Plans) Department was created; secondly, because it has not behind it great trade interests and a great trade
organisation ready to take on the work; and, thirdly,


because the right hon. Gentleman, because of his other duties, and because of his personal outlook and other qualities, has not faced this as an important executive task to get on with, and get on with quickly. The House will remember that, after a long period of procrastination, the Food (Defence Plans) Department was brought into being, apparently not so much because the Government wanted it, but as a defence against critics. In the first place, it has not a good name, "Defence Plans." I am always in favour of planning before action, but on condition that there is also an executive department with the power and ability and will to act as well as plan. Then this Department was then allotted, partly to the President of the Board of Trade, and partly to the right hon. Gentleman. You had, therefore, this late-born, unwillingly-conceived, miserable child handed over for a niggardly alimony to one Minister and to the step-fatherly neglect of another. Unhappily endowed and unhappily baptised, its prospects in life were poor, and these poor expectations have been abundantly realised.

This question of food storage is moreover different from almost every other branch of Defence in this respect. Almost everything else has the support of a trade interest and a trade organisation which will take on the job. That is not the case with food storage. This is eminently, therefore, a task which has to be done by the Minister with his Department. If it is found to be necessary, the work has to be taken in hand, an organisation built up, and the work put through by his executive authority. We all admire the qualities of the right hon. Gentleman. His legal talents, his judicial temperament, his ability to interpose between the most legitimate and current criticism and the Department criticised, an imperturbable and impassive defence, have evoked the admiration of all of us. I should think he is the greatest Parliamentary stone-waller of all time.

But this task for providing food storage requires a man who is predominantly executive in character, knows what he wants, and pushes it through. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not predominantly a man with those qualities, and that he is not the most suitable person for this particular task, which is to

find out what is wanted and then drive the thing through. His main job, after all, is not that of Minister of Defence, but Co-ordinator of Defence. He is dealing with three great fighting services, each with a thrusting energy of its own. What chance is there against these of a fourth branch, where there is no Department and no Minister other than himself? This is a job which wants pre-eminently a Minister who will say, "What the situation needs, I will get on with." With great respect, I suggest that if we were choosing from this House a Minister with that particular quality, it is not the right hon. Gentleman that we would choose. If I have gone a little beyond the mark in these concluding remarks I apologise.

Those of us who advocate food storage do so because we are gravely anxious. The vivid memory of my experiences at the centre of the shipping and supply control in the last War makes me anxious. I know how grave was our danger then, through the absence of adequate food stocks, though we had full command of the sea. I know how invaluable would then have been the provision of such stocks as we are now advocating. I see no reason to believe that, if war came again now, we should—taking all factors into account.—be in a better position now. I know how greatly the whole situation could be relieved by some such relatively modest preparation as we are now proposing. I have never wanted to make this a matter of political controversy. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I went to him in the earliest stages, and that correspondence and interviews took place between us, and nobody would have been happier than I if it had never become a matter of public controversy. But if the matter is allowed to drift on and on our danger of defeat in war will be much greater than it need be; more than that since vulnerability is a temptation to the aggressor not only our danger in war, but our danger of war, will be much greater than it need be if we now provide reserves of food.

5.30 p.m.

Sir T. Inskip: It may be convenient—at least I hope the House will think so—if I say what I have to say at this stage, especially while I have fresh in my mind the observations of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and what he hopes I


shall say and what he hopes I shall not say. I am obliged to him for his kind personal references to myself, and he will fully understand that I do not object at all to criticism. Indeed, I am criticised on all these occasions, but there is a certain amount of misconception, I think, as to the attitude both of myself and of the Government, which has been expressed in the speech of the hon. Member and in the speeches of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) and the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). I think it was in reply to the hon. Member for Romford, who a little while ago asked me a question as to whether I had any statement to make, that I said in the most explicit terms that I had no statement to make. He charged me, I think a little unkindly, with inability to give a straight answer to a straight question. I should have thought that that was about the straightest answer that anybody could give. I will not retaliate upon the hon. Gentleman except to say that he made, from his point of view, a very interesting and, indeed, suggestive series of observations as to the necessity for food storage. Before I sit down—and I do not propose to make a long and elaborate statement—I hope to show that I realise the advantages of storage as much as any of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, or any of those hon. Gentlemen who are waiting to pounce upon me as soon as I sit down.
The attractions of food storage, as I have already said in this House many times, are obvious. We have all been brought up to admire the thrifty, prudent habits of those humble insects the ant and the bee, and in view of the typical illustration which the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) has given in this House, as well as in the country, we should all be impressed at first sight with the advantages of food storage. But it really is not quite so simple a problem, when you begin to deal with it and examine the possible methods of food storage, as first suggests itself to those who recommend the policy, but have not the responsibility of carrying it out. I want to make it perfectly plain at the beginning of my observations that if in some respect I seem to criticise the way in which the proposals for food storage have been presented in this House and outside, it is because they have been, I think, pitched too high. I must not be understood for a single moment to suggest

that a policy of food storage within proper limits is not right and probably necessary, provided it can be carried out with due regard to other considerations which I am sure the hon. Member opposite would be bound to recognise.
I am not sure that it was not the hon. Member for North Islington who said that this is part of the whole question of Defence, and it is only part of the question of Defence. I think that I shall be able to show a little later on, that it is partly because it is part of the whole question of Defence that there has been what the hon. Member for Oxford University seemed to think was undue delay. He has asked me—and indeed hon. Members have asked me on more than one occasion—for a decision on what is called the question of principle. I respectfully suggest to the House that this is not one of those matters which can be determined once for all by a simple decision, aye or no, in favour of food storage. The Government cannot, nor can anybody be acquitted for having discharged their duty by saying, "We are in favour of food storage." The whole question really then arises as to the scope or scale of food storage envisaged, and the way in which it shall be carried out.
The hon. Member for Oxford University criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) for the figures he gave as to the capital cost of food storage on a large scale. I think the reaction of the hon. Member for Oxford University to that statement was really that the figures are fantastic, because the proposals upon which they are based are fantastic. He said, quite rightly, that he himself has never suggested the storage of two years' supply of food, but he has perhaps overlooked the fact that to-day in a Parliamentary Question I was asked by one of my hon. Friends as to whether I would not give an assurance to the House of the storage of two years' supplies, not of wheat or the equivalent of wheat, but of the total food supply of the nation. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford to be referring to that proposal when he calculated the cost as being in the neighbourhood of £600,000,000 or £700,000,000 for overseas supply of food.

Sir A. Salter: The Amendment is presumably addressed to the Motion, and I


do not understand that the Mover of the Motion or anyone associated with it had ever had in his mind anything like a scheme of this character.

Sir T. Inskip: I am very glad indeed, and, of course, I expected to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, but I think that I am justified, in passing, if only to clear the decks for consideration of this question, to say that fantastic suggestions of that sort are really not in the picture at all.

Sir A. Salter: Hear, hear.

Sir T. Inskip: We are all agreed upon that point, and I think we have made a good start. The next consideration that must occur to anybody is that, if a particular proposal for food storage is wrong and has vices because it is conceived upon too large a scale, the only question that then has to be determined, or the next question that has to be determined, is as to the scale upon which food storage should be adopted. As I said a moment ago, suppose the Government decided in favour of food storage, they immediately would be faced with the question as to the particular measures they must take in pursuance of their decision. That, as I think the hon. Gentleman opposite recognises, would not mean that they could possibly be expected to go out into the market, to Mincing Lane or the Baltic or anywhere else, and make a large number of purchases, but that they must from time to time, as opportunity presented itself, and if possible, secretly, make the purchases which best accorded with their conception as to the needs of the occasion. I hope that that statement corresponds to the sort of conception which the hon. Member for Oxford University has in his mind of the Government's duty. Would he be surprised to hear that that is exactly the way in which I see this question?
He is inclined to complain of the delay which has taken place. I do not know whether hon. Members are inclined to take this from me or not, but the time that has passed has been—I will not say absolutely—necessary for the survey that has been made. I plead guilty—and I hope the House will accept this from me for not always being able to drive a particular matter forward at the earliest possible moment, but in the 14 months which have passed since the setting up of

the Food (Defence Plans) Department there has not been very much more than the necessary time for a complete survey of the stores of food in this country, as to the circumstances in which they might be purchased, as to the places where they might be stored, of the capital expenditure involved and generally of the measures that would be necessary to make them an asset without any items on the debit side which would largely destroy their value. The time has not been wasted.
The hon. Member for Oxford University criticised us for seeming to dwell too much on the plans which the Food (Defence Plans) Department have made and exhorted me not to spend much time upon that. I will accept his exhortation for the very good reason that, within a very short time a full report will be published of the work of that Department! Answers to Parliamentary questions have shown from time to time what has been going on, and I think that I am entitled to lay a little emphasis upon this, because the Motion which hon. Members opposite commend to the House concludes with a reference to the importance of making plans for the distribution of food. I can assure the House that, whether this is the roof or the foundation, these plans have been, I will not say completed, but substantially brought to a stage where little more remains than to carry out in detail the arrangements at the various ports, and so forth, for making the scheme effective.
Let me say one more word upon the question of cost of food storage upon a large or a considerable scale. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford is entitled to point out that you cannot quite dismiss it by saying that it would involve only an annual cost. You have to consider the capital cost. To tell the truth I am a little surprised at an economist of the eminence of the hon. Gentleman opposite treating this as a matter that can be dealt with on the basis only of annual cost. I have learnt painfully in the course of this armaments programme that the capital cost—the money that has to be raised and spent on capital expenditure—is a formidable item in the total Bill.

Sir A. Salter: Is there anything in the whole defence programme which is so properly, on the strictest financial grounds, applicable to the £80,000,000 a year which has been treated as for capital


expenditure, as the first provision of food and of the accommodation in which to store it? I think that on the strictest terms there is nothing that could exceed, and hardly anything that could equal that in the whole of the programme.

Sir T. Inskip: I am not at the moment arguing the question of priority at all, but whether it is possible to dismiss the matter of the question of expense by a summary observation that it would only cost £3,000,000, £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year. That overlooks the fact which hon. Gentlemen who are moving the Motion surely recognise that you have to raise a considerable capital sum. The hon. Member for North Islington put it as high as £100,000,000. Even on the scale suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford University of one year's wheat or its equivalent, that figure is below the mark when you take into consideration the capital cost of the commodity and the capital cost of the building of silos. An optimistic person might hope and expect that, when that scheme came to be liquidated, he would get back the capital cost of the commodity, whether of wheat or sugar, on realisation, but that is a very doubtful proposition in the circumstances which may arise where the supplies coming in, and the amount stored would both have to be liquidated in one year. That is a very doubtful proposition.
As far as silos are concerned—and they will cost, as my hon. Friend said, something like £30,000,000 to store the quantity which the hon. Member has in mind—the money will be wholly lost, because after the scheme comes to an end, these silos will be wholly surplus for the storage and accommodation required by the commercial life of this country. The existing stores at the docks and in our great cities are about 50 per cent. vacant at the present time. That is partly due to the practice of the millers of creating their own stores instead of using the sheds, warehouses and elevators of the great dock authorities. Therefore expenditure upon new stores would be spent for good and all, and lost. That is a large item in the bill that the country has to meet.

Mr. Sandys: Why does the right hon. Gentleman expect the scheme to come to an end at a certain period? Surely, this is no more a loss than dockyards for the Navy or barracks for the troops.

Sir T. Inskip: It is true I was contemplating that the scheme would come to an end, sooner or later. If the hon. Member differs from me on that point, I suppose I had better say a few words about it. I understood that this was a war measure. I did not know that anybody has ever suggested that as a permanent addition to the industrial life of the nation the Government shall store Government-owned food.

Sir A. Salter: I think there is a little misunderstanding. Of course, it will not be permanent when we get to a period when there is no danger of war and no need for defence preparations of any kind, but so long as there is danger of war and conditions such as we are faced with now, this provision is just as much a permanent thing as dockyard accommodation.

Sir T. Inskip: That was what I thought when my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) interrupted me and asked why I thought that the scheme was ever going to come to an end. I said that I hoped that the time would come when it could come to an end.

Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that it could come to an end sooner than the need for the Navy or the Air Force?

Sir T. Inskip: It would come to an end as soon as the extraordinary measures which have to be taken in the present disturbed state of the world were no longer necessary. I hope that every hon. and right hon. Member will join with me in thinking that we are going to live in less disturbed and less anxious years in some part of the rest of our lives than those we are passing through at the present time. However, the point is not of great importance, for the reason that we may regard this £30,000,000 as something which is likely to be finally lost, whether the scheme comes to an end or not. We have to provide the £30,000,000. It would be a charge upon the resources of the country. The sum of £1,500,000,000 to be spent on Defence is very much in the mind of the House, and this £30,000,000 is only one of the items.
I am afraid that if I dwell too much on these objections hon. Members in all parts of the House will begin to say: "He is setting up difficulties and putting up a number of bogies, and his conclusion,


which he feels in his heart and mind, is that food storage is an unnecessary and a ridiculous proposition." Let me say at once that that is not my state of mind, and let me follow up that assertion by saying that I do not think we do any good to the country or assist this policy of food storage by magnifying the difficulties or the dangers to which we are exposed. I am fully conscious of the dangers. No one has more occasion than I to remember the weeks in which the submarine losses were piling up at the rate of 10, 12 or 15 ships a day. I can recall the feelings of all of us about those daily lists of losses. I hope and believe that we start in a much better position to resist and defeat any attack of that sort from submarines. We shall start with the advantage of defence based upon the experience of the War, as well as defence organised and devised in the period since the War. I agree that there are substantial dangers in the destruction of ships, but I do not agree that there is at the moment any shortage of ships, because ton for ton and ship for ship substantially we are in as good a position to-day to get cargo space as we were in 1914.

Sir John Withers: What about the air?

Sir T. Inskip: I am well aware that the danger from the air is considerable and that it may have an effect in the destruction of shipping, the dislocation of the ports or the destruction of granaries at the ports. For that reason I do not think that anyone would suggest that it is desirable to put large quantities of additional food stores in the ports, which are open to attack. Having stated what the dangers are, of which I am perfectly conscious, let me say that we make a great mistake in doing what the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) did, when he stated, in a report which is summarised, that:
In some respects the situation is worse than in 1918. The danger from air attack is much more serious than before. We have a larger population to feed and fewer ships. An aggressor would be much less likely to risk an attack if he knew in advance that we could not be starved out.
That may be true, but to tell the world that we are in a much worse state than in 1918 is a serious exaggeration of the position, and does no good to this question.
Let me come more closely to the Motion. The hon. Member who moved it regretted that an Amendment has been put down. I agree with the supporters of the Amendment who think that the Motion cannot be accepted, for the reason that has been given by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. Is it right that this House should instruct the Government to carry out a vast programme of construction of stores, silos and granaries? If I asked the House to accept the Motion I should have to carry out the instructions to which I had given my assent. I, therefore, say quite plainly that at present although I am not shutting the door to any decisions that may be taken in the future if and when food storage may be necessary on a much greater scale I see no necessity for building, as suggested. Indeed, if it were necessary to start building at the present moment I very much doubt whether it would be possible, having regard to the other building necessities for the Defence programme. One of the difficulties in the past has been the supply of steel necessary. Steel would be required on a large scale for such a programme as hon. Members opposite have envisaged. They may say, "Put it off," but, unfortunately, their Motion says, "Forthwith." For this reason, I welcome the Amendment, because insistence upon a large construction programme "forthwith" is putting the matter in the wrong perspective.
What is going to be done about the maintenance of food supplies? The first thing to be done, certainly, is Defence—Defence in its most elementary and primary sense. In spite of my so-called lack of drive, I am glad that I have hitherto placed greater emphasis upon the necessity for the erection of aerodromes, factories and buildings connected with our Defence Departments. It is not because the Food Department has been the Cinderella of the Departments, but because of the fact that whatever we stored would not have made us safe unless we were in a position to defend ourselves from the air and to keep the seas open. The hon. Member opposite has pointed out very forcibly that food is not the only article that it is desirable to store. Nor is it the only article that has to come overseas. We have to keep the seas open and we have to defend the ports, which involve the creation of a considerable Air Force. We have to defend the


ports and keep the seas open not only for the bringing of our food but for bringing the raw materials from which we make our steel, and the armaments we require.
Seeing that we have to keep the seas open to bring here the raw materials that this country requires, the hon. Member will agree with me in recognising the fact that all the storage in the world would not avail if we failed in the elementary duty of keeping the seas open, which comes first. The fact is that last year, although the position I am glad to say has improved now, the supplies of constructional steel were not sufficient for the purposes of Defence for which we required them. If we were to attempt construction of granaries on a large scale it would be fantastic, seeing that with the greatest difficulty we are making our production of steel equal to the demand.

Sir A. Salter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the limitation upon the importation of steel from other countries has been removed?

Sir T. Inskip: I must not go into questions involving matters of that sort. It is not because I should be unwilling to discuss the matter. We are doing everything possible to increase supplies of steel to meet the demand, with the help of everybody concerned. It is a fact that our primary duty has been to improve our Defences. The next thing is to maintain supplies, and to do that my agricultural friends have so often insisted upon an increase in home production. I have seen an inclination on the part of the hon. Member for Oxford University to disparage home production. Again, going back to his friend, Joseph, he said that Joseph did not devote himself to fattening the kine. What he did was to collect corn and to store it in granaries. If that was Joseph's view of the situation, I do not think it was altogether the right view. Obviously there were better methods of forestalling famine than storing wheat.

Sir A. Salter: The whole of my argument was that, purely from the point of view of war danger, which turns upon the difficulty of importing, it is little use to increase production at home if you have to import as great a quantity of additional fertilisers and feeding stuffs to obtain that increase.

Sir T. Inskip: My point was that the hon. Member had rather disparaged concentration upon home production, whereas I regard home production as of very great importance. If anyone studies the figures he will see that we are in substantially a better position by the recent increases in home production than we were in 1914. Take the case of sugar. We had no home grown sugar in 1914, and now 30 per cent. of our sugar is home grown. Surely, that is an advantage, both from the point of view of food supplies and also from the point of view that sugar beet provides a valuable new feeding stuff for cattle. So far as wheat is concerned, the production is now 1,500,000 tons, or 50 per cent. more than six years ago. This year there are 100,000 more acres of winter-sown wheat than in 1937, the highest acreage under wheat since 1922. Moreover, a significant feature is that agriculture has succeeded in producing a higher yield per acre in the last four years than in the years before 1914, when the production was 17 cwts. per acre as compared with 18 cwts. per acre in the last four years. I could multiply these figures in respect of other commodities which the agricultural industry produces, and I regard this as a real contribution to the question of the food supplies of the country.
However you may organise your storage you must, in the nature of things, largely concentrate it in a few main centres. The hon. Member suggested Penzance. I should not have thought Penzance was a good place in wartime, as the facilities for transport would be likely to be strained, quite apart from the fact that nothing but small ships can get into Penzance. The advantage of home food production is this, that you have it scattered and dispersed over the whole country in the most convenient places. As far as storage is concerned, I agree with the Motion that it should be as far as possible in places immune from attack, but that requires a great deal of consideration. Two years ago there were places on the west coast which one would have said were reasonably immune from air attack. I am not at all sure that they are immune to-day with the increasing range of aircraft. It would be difficult to say that Liverpool is immune from air attack, although a few years ago most people thought that it was relatively immune.
Home production has a great advantage. It has the advantage of dispersal and, also, if you are on the right lines, you can increase the production of any article, some of which may take eight months, some a year and some 18 months. There has been an increase in home production, and in time of emergency this increase could be accelerated, and to that extent the amount of what I may call artificial storage will be less than it otherwise would be.

Mr. Parker: Surely the feeding stuffs for the production of beef, bacon and eggs take up a far greater amount of accommodation on board ship than the finished products?

Sir T. Inskip: I agree that the animal on which we rely is in that sense uneconomic in that the volume of the stuffs which we have to import to feed the beast is greater than the volume of the beast when he is dead. That is one of the baffling facts, but I do not think anyone suggests that we should kill off every beast. That would be a policy of despair. I regard Defence as our primary duty, home production as our next duty, and then the problem of what is to be stored can be arrived at by a consideration of the factors already ascertained. How much will be stored? That is a question of degree. Who is to settle the question of degree? Does the House expect me to mention every week that a decision has been taken to store wheat or cheese, or something else? The essence of the success of a policy of food storage is reticence, of which the hon. Member has so bitterly complained on my part. He was good enough to describe me as the champion stone-waller.

Sir A. Salter: The reticence I complained of was the failure of the Government to say that they had decided on a policy of storage. I never asked or expected the Government to say just what they are going to store.

Sir T. Inskip: I hope that in future I shall not be accused of being less informative than the hon. Member would like me to be. I have stated in the plainest terms that I recognise food storage as an important part of the plans which are necessary for the maintenance of an adequate national food supply, but I am not

going to admit for a moment that that means that we must immediately go out into the market for food commodities and purchase something representing so many weeks' or so many months' supply. The hon. Member for Oxford University indicates his assent to that and therefore I hope the House will allow me to leave the matter there. I do not propose to inform the House of the details of the plans which are being considered by the Government in connection with food storage. I propose to say no more about it. Whatever hon. Members may say about the cost of living they can be certain that any announcement to purchase this or that commodity would send prices up sky high. About 18 months ago, when I first took on this office, there was a certain amount of wheat, not very much, on the other side of the Atlantic. If an announcement had been made that the Government were in the market for wheat everybody knows what would have happened.
I differ from the hon. Member when he says "Let the Government buy as and when they can." That would be fatal to the maintenance of prices consistent with not increasing the cost of living. If the Government went into the grain market and made a purchase of 5,000 tons of wheat everybody would be waiting to know when they were going to make the next purchase. They would always be on the jump and prices would sag and rise in accordance with the position of the market once it was known that the Government were in the market. I favour a policy which will result in food storage with the assistance of those engaged in the industry. That is most congenial to the interests of the nation as well as to the organisations which provide our food. It also has the advantage that it entails less expense on the Government. Whatever hon. Members may say about giving us a blank cheque, I think the party opposite, even against their will, will be obliged to agree with me that the Government must be allowed to carry out the details in their own way, and largely in silence. The time will come when the House will have to be acquainted with the facts, when it becomes necessary to pay for the expenditure for the purchase of food or these other arrangements, but for the time being all that is necessary for me to do is to assure the House that we are not unmindful of the advantages


of this policy, that the Government are aware of the duty which falls upon them to maintain the supplies of food as a reasonable insurance against the dangers to which all Members have referred, but the form of the insurance is a matter which the Government must decide.
I hope that this may be regarded as a non-party question, because in substance I do not disagree with the general statements which have been made. Where I do disagree is with the suggestion as to the time and method in which this work should be done. I think the Debate, if I may say so even after I have spoken, has been of some value in that it has concentrated attention on what of course gives all hon. Members some anxiety, but I think I may also say that the Debate has had this interesting result; that it has drawn from hon. Members opposite two of the best appreciations of the dangers of war against which we have to make adequate Defence arrangements. We get these two advantages. I hope the House will accept the Amendment which was moved in such an admirable speech, and which I think represents the view of the whole House.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Clynes: I hope we shall have an opportunity of hearing the views of hon. Members on the speech we have just heard. For my part, I listened to it with amazement, and I am utterly disappointed at the complete absence of any hint of a definite policy on the part of the Government on this urgent matter of food storage. I am all the more disappointed because it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman really believes in the wisdom of what he has said. That will not do. The Motion gave him an opportunity of reassuring the public that the Government look on food supplies not as a secondary consideration in respect of war preparations but as a primary duty on the part of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has lost this special opportunity, and has referred us to some later occasion when again he will address the House, and probably again earn the mixed and qualified compliments which were uttered in his praise by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). The right hon. Gentleman has been so indefinite as to be quite alarming. He fails to see this problem in its true proportion.
Let me draw his attention to the three points stated in the most definite language in the Motion—an adequate supply of essential foodstuffs, an extension of existing storage plant, and an efficient scheme of national distribution. On those points the right hon. Gentleman has staled some pious opinions and certain views, but he has said nothing in terms of a policy that would commit the Government to any definite action or that could in any sense be taken as reassuring the public mind and relieving it of its present apprehensions. From the beginning there has been in this matter undue secrecy, which has in no way been lessened by the right hon. Gentleman's speech. On the question of food supplies there has been an elaborate effort to conceal facts and to keep the public in ignorance on this vital matter. Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of any potential enemy becoming aware of our intentions? Is he afraid that a potential enemy would be encouraged to attack us if he knew of our plans? I rather think it is likely that an enemy might be deterred by such knowledge from making an attack. Are we not exchanging Ministers and paying visits to countries which may become enemy countries, and exhibiting the preparations which we are making for defence in time of war? Ministers go to find out what is happening in Germany—and, of course, are deceived—and the representatives of other countries come here to see our manoeuvres and inspect the preparations we are making for our national defence.
There is one respect in which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman may be at least fairly judged. It is that he regards, as I imagine, food preparations, the storage of food and food provision of every kind, as part of the general duty of Defence. I ask him, then, to treat it on precisely the same basis as he treats other features and factors of our Defence. Why are we working overtime in munitions factories and preparing a stronger Navy and Army? It is out of fear of attack by some dreaded enemy. Recently, at Weymouth, the Minister of Agriculture said:
What fools we should all look if we built up an artificial system of food growing to guard against a war that never happened.
If one applies that to food and to the general obligation of being ready to feed the people, one must apply it to other features of Defence. Was that statement


of the Minister of Agriculture a Cabinet document? If so, rearmament of any kind cannot be justified on any ground. The right hon. Gentleman cannot depend entirely upon the slight increase which has occurred in the output of home-produced food, and we must not rely upon improvising an organisation after an outbreak of war has occurred. Great quantities of food are obtainable now without in any sense shattering the basis of food prices as they may exist throughout the world. We can get from our Dominions great quantities of meat, wheat and many kinds of nutritious foods. Are we to take it from the right hon. Gentleman that if the British Government wanted great supplies of these foods, our fellow subjects in Canada and Australia would run up the prices and make us pay what would be exorbitant rates? Surely, he does not put the patriotism of Canadians and Australians down as low as that. I refuse to believe that, if properly approached by the Mother Country, our fellow-subjects in these vast British Empire possessions would not be equal to a patriotic act, and would seek to exploit us in an hour of difficulty.
What was the cause of the victory of the Allies in 1918? The Central Powers, in 1918, were broken because the whole of their civilian population, essential to the support of the troops, was broken by food shortage. The political upheavals of a semi-starved nation in war can produce results more decisive than those produced by high explosives. In 1916 and 1917 we in this country were reaching the peak of our greatest difficulties and distress. A state of alarm was growing up which might soon have passed into a conscious fear of defeat. Hon Members do not need to take my word for that, for they can see in the Official History a revelation of the facts as they were at that time. If the House will allow me to mention it, I can recall a night at the Food Ministry across Westminster Bridge when Lord Rhondda, whose deputy I was at that time, said to me: "Clynes, it may well be that you and I stand between this country and revolution." That was not vanity, but a knowledge of the increasing fears and dangers following in the wake of the food queues that were then forming, and of the increasing disturbance of mind of men in the workshops whose wives had

to wait for hours in order to get the barest necessities of life.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman now not to be deterred, even by the formidable question of prices, from making the necessary preparations. Nobody has argued that that which we suggest in the Motion would amount to more than 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the total expenditure on the preparations that we are making for National Defence. But supposing it were twice that amount, supposing it were 10 per cent., that would be but a trifle, an infinitesimal amount, in relation to that valued sense of security which the Government ought to provide for the people. Prices are not the factor which must shape policy in this question. Immense subsidies have been provided to support British agriculture. I have seen a figure reaching the total of about £30,000,000 a year, although I will take the amount as less if it can be so proved. Have we, in exchange for that expenditure on all manner of subsidies, got anything on the credit side in relation to food reserves in the event of an outbreak of war? Home-produced food at best, even with the increase referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, can provide us with only a little more than one quarter of the total, so that we still have to depend for the greater part of our food supplies, I fear as much in war time as in peace time, upon provisions from overseas.
I regard the minimum provisions in regard to Government policy, apprehending a war at the very least, as coming under three headings: Arms sufficient for the fighting forces, sailors and soldiers; food sufficient for the civilian population; and plans made accordingly to provide those essentials. I invite hon. Members to-morrow to read the speech made by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, a speech to which they listened for the greater part in silence and without giving any evidence of approval, and to search for a word of comfort in that utterance.
There are those who think that we shall come out of this all right because the next war is certain to be a short one. There is one condition on which I am certain the war will be short; it is that we should endure a continuance of the attitude revealed by the Minister this


afternoon. Given a food shortage, the war will be the shorter. Upon that we may depend. But nobody can give a guarantee as to the duration of a war, its extent, or whether it will be vast or narrow; it is a plunge into the unknown. In this uncertain world, in relation to war policy, the great thing is not to think you will enjoy the best, but to be ready for the worst, to prepare for what probably will happen and for what possibly may happen, and not to console yourself with the comforting words of the Minister, who refers to something that may be said
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow.
The truth is that this country now offers to any potential enemy a finer target for a direct hit than has ever been the case in any war in the past. Our population is so concentrated, it is so immense for such a small island, and the weapons of war are so altered that we can be attacked, as it were, from beneath the water and from the air in conditions which have never existed previously. In the early months of the last War, steps were taken to establish a wheat commission and a sugar commission, and we did it. There was no serious food trouble until the middle period of the War. But let it be remembered that in that middle period of the War, the air attacks were trivial, and nothing compared with the possibilities of future air attacks which we may have to endure. The enemy now would be more formidable than ever and the task of conveying food to these shores would be enormously greater. I hope that before the Debate closes we shall hear the views of some seamen on the increased dangers to the possibility of imports to this country on account of this dreaded addition to the weapons of war. The supply of material and food in wartime will be much more difficult than it has ever been.
During the last War, we succeeded in raising very substantially the production of food at home. Things have changed very much during the last 20 years. Today, hundreds of thousands of acres which were formerly used for agriculture or allotments have been built up. We have greatly reduced the acreage of land suitable for the purpose of food production within these shores. There is in the Motion an alternative to these limitations. Our cold storage and refrigeration plants have been greatly increased,

more elevators have been erected and remarkable progress has been made in food preservation, especially in canning. Scores of thousands of tons of good food of all varieties can now be stored up in tins, and the old prejudice against tinned food has very nearly passed away.
Any attack, then, will be different and the preparations must be different. Food storage must be regarded from many points of view, particularly because of the risk of attack from the air. If we cannot have general storage on a very large scale, we can at least have substantial stocks distributed through many parts of the country. These would be available without any great internal transport difficulties, and would be ready to meet a state of local famine if such were produced. I decline to turn with any reliance to the one bit of comfort which is to be found in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, namely, his reference to increased home production. In the production of food, unlike other forms of production, you can travel only at nature's pace. You cannot, to any great extent, artificially produce food, and as regards the production of food from the sea, we know that in the last War the difficulty of lifting fish was enormously increased by the danger of enemy attacks. We cannot speed up food production after war has started. A farmer will tell you that it takes nine months to grow a crop of wheat, about 2½ years to produce beef, and the same time to produce a milking cow, and it takes fixe or six months for the little piglet to get from the piggery to the table. We cannot, therefore, place reliance upon the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion or find any comfort in it.
On behalf of my hon. Friends, I say that the question of food supplies ought not to be placed in a secondary position as something to which we can return when we have more leisure. There are great difficulties in every big undertaking, and when the right hon. Gentleman, with great courage and at much personal self-sacrifice, accepted one of the most difficult posts which any Minister could fill, I am sure he did not envisage the length of time that would be taken in making what, I imagine, is no more than a verbal skeleton, if such a thing be possible. I doubt whether anything has been put down properly on paper so that even he


and his colleagues can understand it, but these great undertakings must be faced by Ministers. The ordinary Member of the House may be in a position to ignore them. He may look the trouble in the face and pass on, but not so the Minister. The responsibility is his, and he must not seek to evade it on the ground of the risk of great losses, or high costs. Those facts will not prevail in a crisis. If food is not in store in war-time, then the war for us is lost and Ministers will incur a terrible responsibility for any precaution which they now ignore. Ignoring precautions they clearly are, and, if an opportunity could be given for it by our procedure, it is not the mild terms of such a Motion as this on which we should divide, but a vote of the severest censure on Ministers for failing to do their duty.

6.35 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I wish in the first place to associate myself with the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) in the congratulations which he offered to the hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Motion and the expression of our thanks to them for bringing it before the House and providing us with this opportunity for a useful discussion on a vital topic of public interest. I listened also with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). He said that this was no party issue and that he was not going to make a party speech, but later a number of reflections crept into his remarks, connected with the Cobden Club and other matters which seemed to have a closer relation to party polemics than to any aspect of national defence. I wish, however, to confine my remarks to the narrowest limits possible, and, therefore, do not propose to follow the hon. Member into that field.
I would only observe that he started by doing his best to demolish the plan of food storage put forward by the hon. Member for Oxford University, but after a few sentences he sheered off that plan altogether and proceeded to discuss, at much greater length, a plan of which personally I had never heard and of which I think few Members had ever heard, for storing two years' supply. The hon. Member declared that I was an enthusiastic supporter of that plan—of which I had never even heard. Far from being

an enthusiastic advocate of it, I repudiate it. Indeed I have never approached this question as an enthusiastic advocate of any plan. I regard it as a question which demands careful and earnest thought. From the Government, it demands more than careful and earnest thought. Now, 14 months after the Food Plans Department was set up what is demanded from the Government is a decision. But the subject is not one in regard to which I have light-heartedly or enthusiastically advocated a particular course. I did not know from where this monstrous plan referred to by the hon. Member had emerged, but it turned out to be a plan which had been suggested in a Parliamentary question by one of his hon. Friends on the other side of the House. I think it was a pity that, possibly on the inspiration of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, the hon. Member devoted so much of his speech not to the case made by the Mover of the Motion but to a Parliamentary question asked by one of his political friends.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence found another object of criticism. He singled out a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), who does not happen to be in his place to-day. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend that he intended to bring up the question of that speech. I could see that the right hon. Gentleman had in his hand a little cutting, about an inch long, obviously an extremely abbreviated account of my hon. Friend's speech, and I think that was a very small peg on which to hang his criticism of the speech of my hon. Friend or of the proposals of the hon. Member for Oxford University. But on that small peg he hung not only such criticism but also an injunction to us not to magnify the difficulties with which we are faced. I agree that we ought not to magnify those difficulties, but they are very great, and we ought not to hush them up.
Ministers are a little too anxious to recommend caution to their critics. They are a little too anxious to stifle criticism. I think that criticism does good and, if there are deficiencies in our military and civilian arrangements for meeting a national emergency, they should be discussed on the Floor of the House. If


they do not exist, the Minister can tell us so. If they do exist, it is better that they should be faced frankly. We may be sure that if we know of deficiencies in our civilian and military arrangements for meeting the emergency of war, foreign Powers who are interested also know. They have plenty of sources of information besides the Debates in this House—sources to which I imagine they attach even more value—and it is just as well that we should have frank discussion of these questions.
I think the situation is serious. Before the last War we started from the very clear-cut proposition that either we should have command of the sea or that we should not. If we had command of the sea, then no difficulties of supplies of either food or raw material would arise. If we had not command of the sea, we should starve if we had no food stored, and similarly, if we had stored even two years' supply of food, we should still have lost the War because we could not have imported the raw materials required for our industries. But it did not quite work out like that. We did hold unchallenged command of the surface of the sea and to that fact more than any other, we owe the successful result of the war. I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Oxford University that this proposal is no substitute for command of the sea. Command of the sea is essential and fundamental. This proposal is merely to assist the Navy in its main task of commanding the surface of the sea. They performed that task with complete success during the last War, yet, owing to the emergence of a new and unforeseen peril, we were reduced at one time to 17 days' supply of wheat and a week's supply of sugar. That is what happened in the last War, and I think we are not better situated to-day. In fact in some respects we are worse situated to-day than we were in 1914.
I do not propose to discus the strategic situation, though I join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) in the hope that some of the hon. and gallant Members opposite will take part in this Debate and discuss the effect of the emergence of large numbers of submarines on the one hand as against counter-balancing factors like the greater efficiency of protective devices

on the other; but we know that there is, under present conditions, a terrible new peril to our food supplies. Our docks and harbours and quays and inland communications and the whole of our present system of food storage is liable to attack from the air. We also know that the tonnage of our Mercantile Marine has fallen. Not only are there fewer ships but there is great difficulty in manning those ships. Anybody here who belongs to the shipping industry knows the difficulty which is experienced in obtaining men like boatswains and junior engineers at the present time. Yet in the event of war, the Admiralty would at once take 6,000 men from the Mercantile Marine. Moreover, there are 4,000,000 more mouths to be fed in this country now than there were in 1914.
As against all those counts on the debit side the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned one on the asset side. He says that our agricultural production has increased. It is true that we have more dairy cattle and more livestock of other kinds. We have many more pigs and we have doubled the number of fowls that we had in 1914, but from the point of view of saving shipping space in time of war, those factors are quite irrelevant because to feed that livestock it is necessary to import supplies of feeding stuffs which occupy more shipping space than would their equivalent in dead meat. Indeed, the position is even worse than that bald statement represents it to be, because we are not producing in this country as much of the feeding stuffs required for these animals as we were producing in 1914. There has been a decline in the home production of oats and barley, a decline which is still continuing. I did not at all like that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he seemed to regard as a partial solution of this problem the possibility of rapidly increasing agricultural production at the outbreak of war, because it takes at least 9 to 12 months to increase the production of cereals, and it takes, according to the particular livestock you are raising, anything up to three years to increase your production of livestock. We have to remember, too, that our agricultural population has fallen from over 1,000,000 men and women, including casual workers, in 1914, to fewer than 750,000 at the present time.
Considering that in all these respects our food position is definitely worse than it was in 1914, it is no wonder that Lord Baldwin, when he was Prime Minister, announced at the beginning of last year the appointment of a committee of three to make plans for increasing home-grown food supplies "as a matter of national emergency"; but as far as this House knows nothing has happened, no decisions have been taken, and indeed the truth is that you cannot hurry the processes of agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman spoke well when, referring, I think, to an interruption from these benches, about the necessity of importing the equivalent, at least, in shipping space of foodstuffs to feed our livestock, he said, "Yes, that is a baffling fact." I am afraid it is a baffling fact and that the increase of agricultural production, important as it is from a long-range point of view for social and economic reasons, cannot be regarded as an immediate and direct contribution to the particular problem of saving shipping space and ensuring the food supplies of the nation in time of war which this House is considering this afternoon. Therefore, to meet the emergency, to relieve the country from the pressure which it would throw on our Navy and mercantile marine, we must have something more certain and immediate in its operation, and hence the vital importance of this question of food storage.
I am not here to say that a decision in favour of food storage or of a particular form of food storage is an easy matter. I am not here to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us details of the exact amount of food that he proposes to buy and store and where he is going to put it. Obviously a great many factors have to be considered. But this question is one which affects the safety of the country, and I am here to complain that even to-day the right hon. Gentleman has given us no clear statement that this need of food storage is going to be met on an adequate scale. There are two respects in which, it seems to me, his statement was unsatisfactory from the standpoint of those of us who are anxious about the question of food storage. First of all, he did not give us any indication of the scale on which the storage was going to be undertaken. I do not want the details, I do not want to know exactly how much of each particular kind of food

is going to be stored, but the House would feel more comfortable if he would say that roughly the scale which the Government were contemplating was not the absurd scale of two years' food supply, but the kind of scale which the hon. Member for Oxford University has in his mind. The second point on which his statement seemed to me to be profoundly unsatisfactory was that he did not indicate that the Government had realised the importance of the question of the dispersion of the storage of supplies. On the contrary, he said that they were relying upon the trade keeping rather larger stocks than usual.

Sir T. Inskip: No, the right hon. Gentleman must not say that. I specially referred to the value of the dispersal of stocks as contrasted with concentration in areas, none of which were very easy to describe as safe.

Sir A. Sinclair: There was a passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he referred to the encouragement which he hoped would be given to the trade to increase their supplies.

Sir T. Inskip: I am sure it was my fault if I was not sufficiently clear. The other passage was unconnected with dispersal. It was a reference to the possibility of getting the trade in particular food commodities to increase their stocks, which would have the advantage of not imposing so large an expenditure upon the Government. That was an alternative policy to the Government buying stocks of food. It was not to exclude that policy, but an alternative.

Sir A. Sinclair: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman realises that the connection between those two passages of his speech and the importance of the policy of dispersion arises from the fact that in the case of wheat and other commodities, but certainly in the case of wheat, the trade keep their supplies in the most exposed places, at the ports round our coasts, and especially in London and on the East coast; and when the right hon. Gentleman therefore speaks of reliance on the trade to increase their stocks, we feel that that means that the stocks are going to be increased in the most exposed places in the country instead of being dispersed.

Sir T. Inskip: I am sorry to interrupt again. I certainly did not contemplate in what I said adding to the stocks of


food in the places which are so liable to attack and possibly damage or destruction. I fully share the right hon. Gentleman's preference for as wide a dispersal as possible, and even in the case of food stocks which are increased with the help of the traders in the business, I do not agree that the tendency of that would be to put them in the big centres at the ports. Take wheat and flour, for instance. It would go into a great variety of holders and bakers and small millers throughout the length and breadth of the land, and that is one of the advantages of the plan that I propose.

Sir A. Sinclair: In so far as those advantages accrue to the right hon. Gentleman, we, of course, shall be very glad, but if you are going to avoid this concentration of wheat supplies at the ports which the trade itself is now using for the purposes of importation, which in large measure are in some of the most exposed ports in the country, then I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to disregard some of those arguments which he was using against the proposal of the hon. Gentleman on the ground of the expense of putting up new silos, and instead of these storehouses in the most exposed and vulnerable places, he will have to have several storehouses dispersed about the country where they will not be exposed to concentrated air attack.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I was unfair in suggesting that he was vague, but in no part of his speech did he say that he accepted, even in general outline—and we would not ask him to do more than that—the plan of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University. He begged us not to suppose that his speech meant that he does not think that food storage is an unnecessary proposition, but he did not tell us that he thought it was a necessary proposition on the scale which my hon. Friend advocated. What I gathered was his principal objection to the speech of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) was the use of the word "forthwith." I rather gathered that the right hon. Gentleman wished us to understand that he was generally benevolent towards the proposition of the hon. Member for Romford, but that what he objected to was the suggestion of action which is contained in the word "forthwith." I cannot help thinking that it is action, an assurance of

action, which this House would most greatly have welcomed from the right hon. Gentleman. After all, this matter has been under public discussion for some 18 months. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University in the Debate in July last. He may perhaps permit me to remind him of this passage from his own speech:
I am only in a position to say this, that the Government have had the assistance of one of our greatest public servants, a civil servant, on this question for months. He reviewed the position in all the detail which was necessary to enable the Government to come to a decision on the question of food storage.
And he went on to say:
It is now … in a state in which the Government can take a decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1937; cols. 2960–1, Vol. 326.]
Really we had hoped that a decision in no uncertain terms would have been given to the House of Commons this afternoon.
The Food Department plans which have been the subject of two important articles in the "Times," seem good, so far as they go, but they are merely plans for putting up machinery, and what we want to know and to be assured about is that we shall not only have the machinery for distributing the food, organising its collection, and buying during the time of war, but that we shall have a sufficient supply of food to distribute to the people. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulty of liquidating supplies and suggested that a great deal of the money would be lost when the time comes, that we need no longer make these preparations for a national emergency, but, of course, so will the money which we are spending on the Army, the Navy, the docks, the barracks, and all that be lost too, and this is only a very small fraction. If we are spending £1,500,000,000 on Defence, surely we can spend £1,530,000,000, and by the addition of that £30,000,000 get this very great additional security which the proposals of the hon. Member for Oxford University would give us.
These plans of the Food Plans Department, good as they are, are not sufficient. They include, it is true, arrangements for co-operation with the food trade, accurate information on stocks and sources of supply, arrangements for purchases and supplies from abroad both in


bulk on advance contracts and by instalments through buying commissions, plans for the diversion of shipping and the pooling of transport, and, of course, the vital question of rationing, but I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is going to prove to be the Old Mother Hubbard of this Government. The House will remember that the dog looked up hungrily at Old Mother Hubbard as she advanced to the cupboard, and we are entitled, to assume that there was no obstacle in her way, that she went unimpeded through the room to the cupboard, that there was a good key, which worked well in the lock, and the door swung open smoothly and easily on its hinges; and the right hon. Gentleman has taken pains to see that we shall have machinery in war time for food distribution which will work as easily. But unfortunately, when Old Mother Hubbard opened the cupboard there was no food inside it, and that is exactly the position which we wish the right hon. Gentleman to guard against. If he would accept this Motion even now, the House would feel happier at the conclusion of the Debate.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: In common with many other Members I have been for two years past asking the Government for a clear statement of their position on this matter of foodstuffs. We have had the statement this afternoon, and I must say frankly that I am disappointed. My right hon. Friend said he did not, at any rate for the time being, see any necessity for increased construction of storage accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party referred to Old Mother Hubbard. It is a question of whether Old Mother Hubbard is going to have a cupboard at all, for many of us feel that if there is to be any food storage policy on a considerable scale at all, there must be some measure of increased construction.
It is not necessary for me in this House to say more than a very few words about the importance to this country of sure supplies of food in the event of war. There can be no two views on that question. It is a matter of fact, and not one of opinion. We cannot ignore the experience and lessons of the last War. When this country entered the Great War in 1914 we had seven months' supply of food in reserve. Nevertheless, by 1917

we were within a very few weeks of exhaustion. The right hon. Gentleman referred to our position to-day compared with 1914. How does it compare with 1914? In June, 1936, the Home Secretary, who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, declared that we had only six weeks' supply in this country. More recent estimates, I think, suggest that at the most we may have enough for three months. Thus our present supplies of food are less than half what they were in 1914. There are, however, other circumstances which further increase the gravity of our situation.

Sir John Haslam: The hon. Member refers to seven months' food supply. Does he mean wheat only?

Mr. Sandys: I mean all foods. The Leader of the Liberal party referred to the fact that we had 4,000,000 more mouths to feed. At the same time we have 3,000,000 acres less under cultivation to-day than in 1914. On the top of that there has been a very serious decline in the strength of our Mercantile Marine. My right hon. Friend said that the position of the merchant navy was as good to-day as it was in 1914. But not only have we 2,000,000 tons less merchant shipping than we had in 1914, but the average size of our individual ships is greater. This, of course, means that every torpedo or aerial bomb which finds its mark inflicts a proportionately greater loss.

Sir T. Inskip: I should not like the hon. Member's statement to go out uncontradicted. He said our shipping is 2,000,000 tons less—I suppose he means gross tonnage—than in 1914. That is not the fact. The total British shipping in 1914 was 20,524,000 gross tons; to-day it is 20,398,000.

Mr. Sandys: Does my right hon. Friend maintain his statement that the position of the Mercantile Marine is as good to-day as it was in 1914?

Sir T. Inskip: I do. The comparatively small difference between the gross tonnage of 1937 and 1914 is more than compensated for by the greater cargo-carrying space in the ships, by their extra speed, by their improved facilities for turning round, and by the improved arrangements at the ports. Therefore, as a cargo-carrying machine the Mercantile Marine to-day is as effective as it was in 1914.

Mr. Sandys: I submit to my right hon. Friend that the fact that the ships are bigger is in itself an added danger in time of war, and does not by any means make up for the deficiency. In general, I think if my right hon. Friend looks into the position he will see that our merchant navy is considerably weaker in almost every respect, and considerably less able to meet the demands for supplying foods, than it was in 1914. As to the Navy, all our Defence plans are based, and are rightly based, upon the assumption that we are going to maintain our naval supremacy; but that assumption, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) said, does not in any way suggest that we might not in another war, as we did in the last, when we never lost our naval superiority, go through a period in which our merchant shipping might suffer crippling losses through the attacks of enemy submarines or aircraft. In the last 20 years the methods of defence against submarines have undoubtedly made great strides, but from the point of view of our food supply the advantage has, I think, been more than offset by the increase in range and power of the air-bomber. Not only can the bomber intercept our food supplies before they reach our shores, but it can destroy or contaminate the stores which we already have in the great silos and granaries at most of our ports.
What can be done in the face of these many and varied dangers to ensure the nation's food supplies in the event of another war? The Minister referred to the importance of increased home production. Personally, I think there is room for a further considerable increase in our home production, but it is of course a question of degree. The Government's agricultural policy in regard to Defence is, as I understand it, by increasing the fertility of the soil and by other methods, to put British agriculture in a position in which it can quickly expand its output in the event of an emergency. The steps which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is taking in that direction are necessary and desirable, but, of course, they do not in any way constitute an alternative to a policy of food storage. Apart from all other considerations, there is the factor which was alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Opposition—the question of the time-lag.

The Minister of Agriculture himself explained only the other day that in a policy of agricultural expansion a considerable period must elapse before any tangible results in the form of increased food supplies can be obtained. To increase the output of wheat, he said, would take nine months. In the case of bacon the period is one year, mutton two years, and beef three years. From that I think it is evident that it would be quite hopeless to rely upon any sudden or rapid expansion of our home production during the early stages of a war.
I do not propose at this time to go into any details about the technical aspect of food storage. Practical difficulties undoubtedly exist. But the fact that Germany has in the last few years increased her food storage capacity by as much as 50 per cent. shows that these difficulties are by no means insuperable. Incidentally, it shows also the importance which Germany attaches to this aspect of Defence. Food storage will have to be achieved through the combination of a number of different methods. The farmers, the millers, the bakers, the caterers, and other trading interests, who already possess considerable storage accommodation, would no doubt have to receive some financial inducement from the Government to maintain increased stocks of grain and other non-perishable foodstuffs. But in addition to this it would, I think, undoubtedly be necessary for the Government to construct increased storage accommodation on a considerable scale, dispersed for safety's sake in different parts of the country. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence referred to the difficulties of buying grain for storage without upsetting the market. Provided these purchases are made discreeting and gradually, and at propitious moments when the price of grain is low, I cannot see that it presents any greater difficulties than do the very similar transactions of the Government's Exchange Equalisation Fund, which has worked so successfully and so smoothly.
In conclusion, let me emphasise that food storage, like air-raid precautions, is one of those aspects of passive defence which, if neglected, can easily undo all the effects of spending hundreds of millions of pounds upon the expansion and re-equipment of our fighting Forces.


The advantages of a policy of food storage are, I trunk, many and important. It would relieve the Royal Navy of some of the strain of its convoying duties. It would, to some extent, make up for the present weakness, as I maintain, of our Mercantile Marine. It would give farmers a breathing space in which to increase our home production. It would be a source of strength to the Government, and a source of security to the people. In time of peace, moreover, it would be a definite advantage both to the farmers and to the consumers, in that it would tend to reduce the fluctuations in food prices between good and bad years. The cost, considering everything, would be comparatively small, and the advantages are, I submit, enormous. Therefore, I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Coordination of Defence will in the course of the next few months seriously reconsider what must be regarded by many hon. Members as the very disappointing attitude which he has adopted this afternoon.

7.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: I listened with great attention and admiration to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). I differed from him in only one respect. He said that the speech of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence had caused him astonishment and surprise. It caused me nothing of the sort. It was exactly the turgid, viscid and anodyne sort of speech which I anticipated. It certainly profoundly disappointed the House, and it will equally disappoint the country tomorrow. One passage in the speech was, I thought, alarming. That was the complete misapprehension which the Minister showed when he referred to the subject we are discussing as only a preparatory war measure, the necessity for which might soon pass away. That shows one of those fundamental misapprehensions on matters of defence which make some of us entertain such grave apprehension that the Minister has anything to do with such matters. I wish to deal with only one or two points affecting defence in regard to food supply.
In the matter of shipping, I have on previous occasions pointed out that the tonnage available for carrying food is down by nearly 1,500,000 tons as compared with 1914. In spite of what the

Minister said on that subject, I still think that this is an extremely serious situation, as we cannot now depend on having available the tonnage of two countries which were then with us. In any case, the risks nowadays from submarines and aeroplanes are so great that neutral shipping may be found reluctant to come to our assistance. With such a shortage of tonnage it would be most valuable to have a year's food stored, leaving such tonnage as we have for the import of vital raw materials. Moreover, if we are not hard pressed in the matter of food supplies, thanks to having some stored away, we would be able to route our shipping by the safest routes instead of by the most dangerous routes in order to save time.
I will come more directly to the question of Defence. During the War it took us a long time to find the antidote to the submarine. Twelve months' supply of food in store would give us time in which to find the antidote to those new forms of attack upon our food ships which we shall certainly have to face. We are prone to speak as if the submarine menace had been mastered, but in another war there will be many hundreds more foreign submarines afloat than there were in 1914–18. They will be much more powerful and efficient, able to carry more torpedoes, and with a much greater range of endurance. The arrival of food convoys must remain mainly the responsibility of the Navy. But the Navy, even the strong Navy spoken of this afternoon, can no longer by its own efforts guarantee the safe arrival of our food ships. Aircraft may co-operate, but they cannot undertake continuous convoy. They can operate in support of food convoys only in narrow waters. It is not merely a question of bringing food to these shores in the food ships. The problem is more what happens after the food ships arrive. Docks, wharves, warehouses, trains and lorries will all be subject to air attack. The Royal Air Force will have to deal with that menace. The effect of the air weapon in future will be enormously to increase the possibility of dislocation of our food supplies both in the process of arriving here and of distribution after arrival, with the consequent possibility of starvation of the civilian population.
We have to contemplate totalitarian war, with the whole nation, as well as


the Army, marching on its stomach. It is a theory now that the power of the defence has enormously increased, but empty stomachs will break down any defensive. All the money being spent on rearmament will be money thrown away if our food supplies cannot be guaranteed. There is a great deal of talk about the theory of the knock-out blow in war. The knock-out blow in the last War was delivered on the home front in Germany, which collapsed through the food shortage, although the German armed forces were never defeated in the field. Lord Baldwin said that if threatened the people of this country would spring to arms as one man. They may, but you will not be able to feed them on one man's rations. Is the Government while spending £1,500,000,000 on re-armament going to take us into a war without our food supplies guaranteed.
It is very probable that the enemy in another war will concentrate far more on bombing our docks than on submarining our food ships at sea. What will happen if we have to divert the food ships from our eastern to our western ports? We had some experience of it during the War. There were six ships diverted from London to Plymouth. They took three weeks instead of one to discharge 27,000 tons. The transport to take this food from Plymouth to London was practically non-existent and only 7,000 tons got there. Cargoes rotted in harbour for lack of transport facilities. There was a scandal in 1918 when great quantities of bacon accumulated in Liverpool, Bristol and Glasgow. Thousands of tons went bad while it lay on the quays and in warehouses because there was no transport to take it away.
In face of these considerations what is being done? The Food Defence Plans Department, appointed in September, 1936, gave its first sign of life in November, 1937, when it appointed 15 food supply officers for England and Wales. We are told that these officers are in due course to be approached by a chief-divisional officer. I suppose that they will sit in the twilight and have a nice talk in suitably low tones about the creation of a "shadow" organisation to control the supply and distribution of food in war time. Nothing so low as the provision or storage of the food these

shadowy officers are to control and distribute will be mentioned. At the present moment we have shadow aeroplane factories, from which the shadow of an aeroplane never emerges. Now we have a shadow organisation for controlling food supplies and prices in time of war, and we have shadow local food committees. This Government seems to live amongst shadows, but even if they were all as substantial as the shadow of the right hon. Gentleman, shadows are no good. The enemy is not going to indulge in shadow boxing. Let the public have some substance and be told frankly what are the war time arrangements for food supply and distribution. Why all the secrecy—this secrecy which is always the fetish of little unconstructive minds? Is everything so secret because nothing but brave words exist?
The Food Defence Plans Committee has sat since December, 1936. The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence sits in the next nest, and a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence sits in the next nest to him. Before all this Sir William Beveridge sat on a sub-committee on rationing. They all sit and sit. They have all been broody for over a year, but where are the chickens? Perhaps I have paid them a compliment. Perhaps they are not broody. There are some hens that cannot or will not try. There are other hens which are egg-bound. There are representatives of the Merchant Service, the Navy, the Air Force, the railways, the road carriers, the dock authorities, the provision merchants—all sitting. There are numbers of subcommittees sitting. There is a committee sitting on the diversion of shipping, another on the control of ports, another on rationing for war purposes, and another on the extension of the canning industry to meat. I think the Government must have given them addled eggs or nest eggs, what we call pot eggs in the north, to sit on.
When the emergency arises action will have to be swift. We are told that there is most valuable information left to us from the work of Lord Rhondda's Ministry. The most valuable lesson left behind by that Ministry is that it did not start work until two-and-a-half years after the War began and when prices had risen by 78 per cent., and it was not effectively at work until nearly a year later. The


lesson of the work of Lord Rhondda is that this matter brooks no delay and that action must be swift.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. De Chair: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has really allayed the anxieties of the House on this subject of food supplies in time of war. We expected something better of him. He is our all-highest war lord, and we expected that he would be able to assure the House that this vital aspect of Defence had been taken into consideration and that something had been done about it. Now we learn that after the two years during which the right hon. Gentleman has held office, the Government have only

surveyed the ground and that plans are not even ready. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman threw out a sympathetic note to agriculture, and I only wish that he had carried it a little further, because he rather took the attitude that that is the job of the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is doing his best. He keeps chugging along on one cylinder, but it is for the right hon. Gentleman to step on the gas and apply the accelerator. I believe he could do that if he wished.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 193.

Division No. 90.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Naylor, T. E.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Ammon, C. G.
Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J
Hayday, A.
Ridley, G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bevan, A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Holdsworth, H.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A.
Sanders, W. S.


Burke, W. A.
Hopkin, D.
Sandys, E. D.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cassells, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Chater, D.
Jones, Sir H. Hayan (Merioneth)
Simpson, F. B.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
Lathan, G.
Tate, Mavis C.


Dobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walkden, A. G.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walker, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Foot, D. M.
Mander, G. le M.
Watson, W. McL.


Frankel, D.
Marklew, E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mathers, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maxton, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Parker and Dr. Haden Guest.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Beechman, N. A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Bennett, Sir E. N.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Balniel, Lord
Bernays, R. H.


Apsley, Lord
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Birchall, Sir J. D.


Assheton, R.
Barrie, Sir C. C.
Bird, Sir R. B.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Blair, Sir R.




Boothby, R. J. G.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Procter, Major H. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Radford, E. A.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hambro, A. V.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Harbord, A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Harvey, Sir G.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bull, B. B.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Burghley, Lord
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Butcher, H. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ropner, Colonel L.


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Higgs, W. F.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hopkinson, A.
Rowlands, G.


Channon, H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Chapman, A. (Ruthergten)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Christie, J. A.
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hunter, T.
Salmon, Sir I.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Savery, Sir Servington


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lambert. Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cross, R. H.
Lewis, O.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Spens, W. P.


Culverwell, C. T.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


De Chair, S. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Storey, S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Drewe, C.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Magnay, T.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Eastwood, J. F.
Maitland, A.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Eckersley, P. T.
Makins, Brig-Gen. E.
Train, Sir J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Turton, R. H.


Ellis, Sir G.
Marsden, Commander A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Elmley, Viscount
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Emery, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Warrender, Sir V.


Everard, W. L.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morgan, R. H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Furness, S. N.
Munro, P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gluckstein, L. H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Grant-Ferris, R.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Peake, O.



Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grimston R. V.
Pilkington, R.
Mr. Duggan and Lord Willoughby


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
de Eresby.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."

Mr. Tinker: rose—

It being after Half-Past Seven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE.

7.39 p.m.

Captain Harold Balfour: I beg to move,
That this House, while recognising the great measure of economic recovery and social progress achieved during the last five years and the exceptional expenditure entailed by the necessity for rearmament, views with concern

the continued growth of expenditure by the central Government and by local authorities, and is of opinion that His Majesty's Government should do everything in their power to lighten the burdens imposed upon all classes of taxpayers and ratepayers.
In moving this Motion I should like to make two things clear. The first is that I do not move it in any spirit of gloom or depression, and the second is that I have endeavoured to draft the Motion, and shall endeavour to explain it, in no party spirit, because I do not wish to attempt to comment upon the justice or the incidence of the burdens of taxation as between different sections and classes of the taxpayers and ratepayers. There is


on the Order Paper an Amendment in the names of two hon. Members of the Labour party. I have read it with care, but I cannot make out what it really means, and I do not propose to comment upon it except to say that the words
realising that the burden of national and local expenditure must be judged by the equity of its incidence and by the purposes for which it is imposed 
indicate to my mind an entirely new theory. I thought every burden had to be judged by its weight. You cannot judge a burden by its incidence to something. It is either a great weight or a light weight, according to one's point of view. However, I do not propose to go any further into the Amendment but leave it to other hon. Members.
Any hon. Member who moves among the taxpayers and ratepayers of the country will find an increasing body of well-informed and authoritative opinion, of all political views, which regards with gravity the present and prospective financial outlook for the country; and there is also an increasing number of ratepayers and taxpayers all over the country who are asking how long they must carry the present heavy burden upon their shoulders which when their circumstances vary—downwards, perhaps, sometimes very little; perhaps sometimes owing to circumstances outside their own control—creates a load under which they buckle, having no resources left with which to meet the demands made upon them. If these feelings are admitted, the country has a right to look to this Legislature for a review of the situation and, if possible, for some form of relief. For a private Member to attempt to review the national income and expenditure, with many figures to deal with, is so formidable a problem that it is impossible for me to attempt to submit my case except in the broadest outline, bearing in mind the warning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 16th July when he said:
I think we talk of these matters with a great deal more confidence, and proclaim our views with a degree of certainty and authority greater than the circumstances permit, and greater than that to which most of us can safely attain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1937; col. 1746, Vol.
I can claim no authority, and the only fortune I have had is the fortune of being successful in the ballot, and, therefore, I

take to heart the warning of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would ask the House to excuse the presentation of grave financial problems by one who has not got the experience of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches.
I wish, first, to picture in the broadest outline the national expenditure to-day as compared with pre-war standards, when the social conscience was not developed, so rightly, as it is to-day, and then to look at the trade position at that time as compared with the position to-day. To-day the annual expenditure budgeted for by Parliament is some five rimes greater than it was pre-war, and the expenditure of the local authorities is some three times greater. The rate per head of the population before the War, in 1914, was £1 18s. 11d., and in 1937 it was £4 4s. 5d. The National Debt has increased twelvefold. The capital debt burden is now double the national income, and before the War it was one-third of it. The debt of the local authorities has increased threefold, but the population which has to carry these burdens has increased only by one-tenth and now has a diminishing tendency.
Now I want to turn to the picture presented when we contrast the year 1928–29 with to-day. I select that year for two reasons. First, we had overcome the post-war budget phase, and overcome the industrial setback of 1926, and, secondly, 1928–29 was really the last year before the world slump and even in that year many people were saying that our expenditure as a nation was far too great. In that year we budgeted for a national expenditure of £770,000,000, and in 1937–38 the expenditure was £862,000,000, an increase of £92,000,000. In order to arrive at the total national expenditure I have taken the total rates paid and collected which, over a series of years, give a fairly good average year by year, because in the budgetary total the grants to local authorities have been allowed for. Therefore, to get the total national expenditure we want to add the rates collected in those two years to the total expenditure of those two years. In 1928–29 we collected £188,000,000 of rates by local authorities. For 1937–38 the total is not available, but on a reasonable estimate of the increases in the past years the figure for 1937–38 can be taken at £200,000,000, giving an increase of


£12,000,000. So now we come to the final figure showing that, in 1928–29, our total national expenditure was £959,000,000, compared with the figure for 1937–38 of £1,062,000,000, or an increase of £103,000,000. We cannot end there, because in 1928–29 we were collecting War debts from the Allies and paying out to America, and were left with a balance in our favour in that year of £33,000,000. Therefore, any comparison between the total expenditures of those years requires that we allow for this £33,000,000. In 1928–29 the provision for the reduction of debt was £52,000,000. This year the provision will probably be £13,000,000, so when making any comparison in national expenditure between the two years, we must allow that extra £13,000,000. This year's expenditure must allow also for the amount borrowed on loan for Defence, a further £80,000,000. The result of this calculation is that the grand total of national expenditure of 1937–38 is greater than that for 1928–29 by no less a sum than £254,000,000, in spite of the savings of approximately £140,000,000 on Debt services.
In order to raise this terrific, this colossal sum, direct taxation is standing at a war-time level, but the estimate of Surtax for 1937–38 is taken on a lower figure than it. was in 1928–29. I think that is a clear sign that what has been often stressed by Ministers is commencing to operate, namely, that there comes a time in all forms of taxation when the law of diminishing yields commences to operate. You come to the position that the more you tax the less you get, and this is proved by the estimate of Surtax being lower to-day than before for I do not think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or the Treasury in general, could be accused of wishing to underestimate the yield in these days of any tax. The serious aspect of the present position is the lack of taxable resources in this country as between the maximum to be extracted from the taxpayers and the sum which it is planned shall be spent annually. I hesitate to think where would be the reserve of taxation suppose that this country were involved in a war, never mind what caused the war, or how the circumstances arose. If we had to face the gigantic expenditure which we had to meet between 1914 and 1918 I hesitate to think, with direct and

indirect taxation at their present level, how we should be able to finance hostilities on any vast scale for very long.
I want now to examine the position whence, in the main, comes the wherewithal for the provision of this enormous expenditure and without which our social life cannot be maintained at its present standard. Examination of the statistical tables—a weary job for most of us—gives us some means of comparison between the pre-war and the post-war levels of trade wealth and give small ground for any feeling that any great increases of substance have been taking place to make the expenditure at our present levels safe in relation to the trade position. There is an increase, it is true, in the total turnover of our domestic trade, but our flocks and herds are about the same as before the War. Our agricultural land is rather less. The money volume of our foreign trade in 1937 has recovered, after the slump, to only approximately its pre-war level, while the visible excess of imports over exports which was in the neighbourhood of £3 per head in 1913, has averaged between £5 and £10 per head ever since. The tonnage of our merchant fleet to-day is about 15 per cent. less than in pre-war days and our foreign investments, as is generally known, are less productive and less valuable.
A League of Nations publication gives some interesting figures, and a sharp picture of the shrinkage in international world trade. In 1913 this was 37,000,000 gold dollars in round figures, and in 1936 it was 25,000,000 gold dollars, a decrease of 32 per cent. These facts and figures must shake our faith, which we have often declared, in the restorative force of that elusive factor of invisible trade balance and make it less secure, and must make us wonder whether if we are not eating into our national capital, we are living right up to the hilt of our national income.
We must remember in studying the position, that without any increase in the social services of the country the present existing social services have certain automatic increases and expenditures which will fall upon taxpayers in future years. With pensions at their present scale under the present Act, the £60,000,000 now expended will automatically rise to £80,000,000 by 1948.


Various other social services will have automatic increases, and coupled with them is the fact that the population is diminishing all the time, and therefore there is a less number of people to bear the burdens, and a greater percentage to become pensionable subjects.
If this living up to the maximum of our taxable limits is admitted, and if the House will admit the operation of the law of diminishing returns, there is reason for all parties in this House to be disturbed. Whether we have a capitalist or a Socialist regime, and whether industry is under private enterprise or is owned by the nation, eventually the same law applies; you cannot get more than a pint of liquid out of a pint jug, whether the liquid is the ordinary wine of capitalism or the alleged nectar of Socialism. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway and ourselves, capitalists and Socialists alike, must depend upon the proceeds of industry for the wherewithal to put into operation our political beliefs.
It is clear to me that we have got ourselves as a country so involved in this whirl of obligations and complications in this capitalist system, that if we are to maintain our standard of life, our hope lies in keeping the wheels of capitalism turning at all costs and ever faster, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted in this House a short time ago as regards trade fluctuations:
That possibility is one which must be always borne in mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1937; col. 1746, Vol. 326.]
Trade may fluctuate either upwards or downwards, and should it be in a downward direction, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government of the day would be faced with the position that the level of expenditure is higher than the level of taxable extraction, and then we may be faced with the same situation which we have seen twice in our time since 1921. As we have no cushion between the taxes levied and the taxable capacity at the present time, it will need but a comparatively small trade depression, and not a world slump, for us to be faced in this country with the fact that taxation will not meet the level of expenditure. The practice of taxing up to the limits is itself part of a vicious circle. Trade falls, from some cause quite outside our control. World markets

are affected by some political cause and our trade in a certain market diminishes. The trade falls and so the revenue falls, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day has to impose a new tax to meet the expenditure. The very imposition of that taxation has a discouraging and depressing effect upon trade, which makes the revenue even less, and the taxation has in turn to go up; so on, in a vicious circle.
Turning to the methods of remedying the situation, I think the House will agree that achievement of economy by administration on any large scale is impossible. You can prevent overlapping by increasing efficiency in the social services and co-ordinating insurance, possibly in the future under a minister of insurance, and it will save a little of your budgetary expenditure, but only a very little. Other administrative economies will help, but I believe that in policy alone will be found the way to alter, and in great sums, the difference between expenditure and revenue, [interruption.] I am trying to make the point that in policy alone can we do anything to ensure that there shall be large differences between income and expenditure.
The future is so uncertain, and unfortunately we see all around symptoms—largely they are emanating from America—that trade is not at the high level that it has been hitherto. There is a new word. We are always coining new words. America is calling this phenomenon a recession. In 1929 it was called a slump in Wall Street but, under the Roosevelt administration, they have to use a rather more gentle word; but the fact is the same. It is because of this American situation that the future is uncertain and that I suggest that we must be prepared to face the fact that from causes outside control of our own country we may be forced to adjust our relationship to world trade. With the present level of extraction so high I believe, also, we must tell the taxpayers and the ratepayers of this country that an Income Tax of 5s. in the £ and rates at their present level, and other forms of direct and indirect taxation, are not the static, normal, peace-time level, and that there is some hope for them in the future. Otherwise there will remain an increasing tendency of discouragement to enterprise and initiative.
I would like to put forward the alternatives before us, as I see them, if the situation changes for the worse. Firstly, we can go on as at present, believing that trade will surely revive and that arms expenditure will come down, and with the general hope that things will be all right. As regards the hope for economising on arms expenditure, as far as I can see, it will be in 1942 that we shall reach the peak of the burden in arms expenditure. To-day we can borrow with decency for capital equipment but once we have provided the capital equipment we have to maintain those arms, and the maintenance cost cannot be charged to capital, but will have to come on to revenue. Therefore I see little hope for the taxpayers as regards the limitation of expenditure in respect of armaments, even when our capital programme of armaments is completed.
The second way is to bank heavily on some belief in a great world trade revival and a great relief from expenditure on armaments by an international arms limitation agreement. That is the second alternative which we should aim at and hope for. But, when these events come about, we should put by, as it were, a taxable reserve by not spending up to the hilt immediately the benefits in revenue which accrue to the Exchequer from such a revival of international trade and such a saving upon arms expenditure. I believe we shall have to tell the electors of the country that, in order to safeguard the present level of our social standards and ensure that they shall not be cut down, we shall have to build up these reserves and so be patient in the extension of reforms. Only by such means shall we be able to ensure the future development of our social services and safe guard their present level. It may not be a popular or an easy cry at a general election, particularly for Members on the Government side of the House, but I think we shall be doing our duty to the electors of the country——

Mr. George Griffiths: You will have to coin a new word.

Captain Balfour: Yes, truth and honesty, to which hon. Members on those benches have paid too little heed in the past. I am trying to put forward, as a second alternative to prevent the social standards of this country being diminished, that we should be honest

about limitations on future developments until we have some margin in our taxable capacity as compared with our expenditure. The third and last way would be some form of inflation, upon which matter I am as a child compared with my hon. Friend who is to second this Motion. I have endeavoured to put before the House the situation and the alternatives as I see them, without drawing any conclusions, in order that we may hear from the Government, first, their views on the situation to-day; and, secondly, what course the Government propose to follow in the future, whether it be one of the alternatives which I have put forward or perhaps another if they have one; and, most important of all, in order that in these few short hours the House may have an opportunity of focusing its attention on this question of living within our means and ensuring that we shall never be taken unawares by any change in the international situation, either upwards or downwards. I have no wish to be pessimistic. Although the world cannot be increased in size, although new countries cannot be created, history shows that there are enormous possibilities in the world. If one looks at the state of progress to-day, one sees that the riches of 100 years ago are really the poverty of to-day, and I believe that the riches of to-day may be the poverty of 100 years hence. The world is developing all the time. But, just because we want to take advantage of the progress which is possible, we must have a sane national outlook, and that very largely depends upon Parliament, whose duty it is to grant and control expenditure, facing the realities of any and every situation frankly and without hesitation.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. and gallant Friend has given us figures of expenditure, and I do not think there is very much more to be said about them, except that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will admit that they are pretty startling, and rather worse than many of us expected. It is high time that the House and the country faced up to them, and I venture to suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend has rendered a great service in bringing this matter before the House, because we do not often get an opportunity of a general


debate on this subject apart from the Budget debates.
On the subject of expenditure I want to add a few words with reference to expenditure by local authorities, and I shall be very interested to see the attitude of hon. Members on the Labour benches with regard to this matter. We have to face up to the fact that the debt of the local authorities has increased from £550,000,000 to£1,400,000,000 between the years 1920 and 1935. I have no objection in principle to local authorities borrowing while money is cheap. It is only a way of carrying out work in five years and paying for it in 20 years, which is, on the whole, a good plan if you can manage it, and if you can borrow the money at reasonable rates of interest. But we ought not to forget that the local authorities have been able to borrow money cheaply during the last few years largely as a result of the policy of cheap money deliberately pursued by the Government.
I find myself in increasing agreement with those who advocate some greater measure of control by the central Government over the timing of expenditure by local authorities. At present it is much too haphazard. Local authorities spend money when they feel prosperous, and, when they begin to feel the pinch, they are inclined to cut down expenditure on capital works. Of course it is natural, but from an economic point of view it is entirely wrong. We want much more information on this subject than we possess at the present time. We want to know what kind of schemes local authorities are carrying out or holding up, and why; and we want greater co-operation between the central Government on the one hand and the main body of local authorities throughout the country on the other, in order to obtain a more coherent national economic policy than we have or can put into operation at the present time.
This is the real answer to the economists, who are always advocating what they call "planning for depression." I have never believed that you can spend your way out of a major trade recession by expenditure on public works, but I do believe it is possible, by a judicious public expenditure, both on the part of the central Government and on the part of the local authorities, to mitigate the effects of it. I think it is idiotic to spend upon

schemes that are not essential in a time of boom. At the moment, we have not the machinery to direct this expenditure. As I have said, it is far too haphazard, and we must get a greater measure of control in order to secure a more coherent national economic policy. I would like to see some form of central authority to act as a liaison between the Minister of Health, as representing the Government, on the one hand, and the local authorities on the other, first to obtain statistical information, which Mr. Keynes asked for in a letter to the "Times" the other day, and which we simply do not possess, with regard to what local authorities are doing and why; and, secondly, to co-ordinate the economic policy of the Government and the local authorities.
There is in connection with expenditure another point that I would like to make. I believe that at the present time there is a certain amount of waste due to overlapping in social services. So much is that so that I think a case could be made out for the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the whole range of our social services and recommend, not only possible methods of obtaining greater economy, but also possible methods of obtaining greater efficiency. Our social services have grown up to some extent piecemeal, as a result of successive Acts of Parliament, and there is bound to be, after all these years, a good deal of overlapping in their administration. Therefore, I venture to suggest that the Government might consider examining, either by a Royal Commission or in some other way, this particular aspect of the situation.
I come now to the budgetary position itself, the figures of which have been so clearly given by my hon. and gallant Friend. They are reasonably satisfactory this year, and we all notice that revenue is coming in very nicely; but the position is going to be a good deal more difficult next year, and the prospects for 1940 give cause for the very gravest anxiety. There are, in my opinion, only two ways in which a financial crisis of the greatest magnitude can be avoided. We have either to cut down national expenditure ruthlessly, or we have to achieve a rapid and substantial increase in the revenue. These are the only two alternatives. For my part, I dismiss the first. I think it is impossible, it is impracticable, it is cruel. If the general expenditure were really cut down, it would


subject this country to social stresses of such severity that we might have a very unpleasant situation. Moreover, what a retrograde step it would be ruthlessly to cut down health insurance, unemployment benefit, and all the social services that have been built up in the last 30 or 40 years. I do not believe for a moment that the opinion or conscience of this House, or any part of it, would tolerate such a method of dealing with what is admittedly a very difficult financial problem.
Therefore, I come to the second alternative. How are we to get more money? The prospects for the moment are not altogether encouraging, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) will admit. So far as direct taxation is concerned, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, the law of diminishing returns is beginning to apply. I do not see how we can substantially increase direct taxation of any kind with any hope of substantially increasing the revenue. Nine months ago, unfortunately, when things were beginning to look pretty good, we entered a further period of deflation. When the first N.D.C. proposals were made in this House, I ventured to point out the enormous dangers which must inevitably attach to a deflationary movement. The Prime Minister thought, and said in his speech at the time, that I took an unduly alarmist view, but, as a matter of fact, the results of the deflation have been far worse than I anticipated. I am not saying for a moment that the N.D.C. proposals were the sole cause of the downward trend. They were a contributory factor in the start of the downward trend; that is all. What we are dealing with to-night are the consequences of that, and they have been disastrous, though not, I believe, irretrievable.
Meanwhile whatever Cabinet Ministers, or Under-Secretaries of State, or the chairmen of our great banks may say, we have now a moderate trade recession, and it is very much better that we should face up to it. Look at the unemployment figures. They do not come about by accident. Look at the fall in capital values. That does not apply to gilt-edged securities, which are kept up to some extent artificially by "hot money" at home and abroad; but if you take the capital value of equities, you see a fall

of at least 20 per cent. That is a very serious and quite unnecessary diminution of our capital reserves, of our capital strength, which was referred to so pointedly by my hon. and gallant Friend.
Lastly, we have wholesale commodity prices, or many of them, down to a level which is no longer remunerative to the producer. Is it to be said that that is not going to have an effect on our overseas trade? Of course, there is bound to be a shrinkage of trade and of revenue. Take, for example, Stamp Duties. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer displays his well known intellectual honesty and integrity, he must cut his Estimates, so far as revenue from Stamp Duties is concerned, by about 50 per cent. in his next Budget; and, as I have said, if the downward trend continues, it will not be possible for us to avoid a first-class financial crisis—just the sort of thing which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) dreams about in his happier moments, but which we are particularly anxious to avoid.
What is the way out? If we reject the remedy of ruthless cuts in expenditure, there is only one way, and that is the way in which my hon. and gallant Friend said I was an expert. It is inflation. Why should we frightened of that word? There is no reason to be. It is the necessary consequence of a deflationary move in order to restore prosperity to the primary producers of the world. Can it be carried out without undermining our whole economic and social structure? Yes, if confidence is maintained; and there is no reason why confidence should not be maintained. The Prime Minister said at Birmingham the other day that the greatest gift that any Government could bestow upon the people was confidence. There is a great deal of truth in that, and I hope that the President of the United States will read, mark and learn and inwardly digest that remark. There is no reason why we should not carry out reasonable inflation, because we are no longer tied to a fixed Gold Standard, and, therefore, as Mr. Keynes has said, "We are no longer under a compulsion to do what is ruinous."
If we set about it in the right way, we can inflate with absolute safety, and without any undue rise in the cost of living. It is always necessary to distinguish sharply between wholesale and retail commodity prices. I am ready to support any


measure which the Government may see fit to take from time to time in order that the gap between wholesale and retail prices is not unnecessarily widened in any way. What are the immediate steps the Government can take to deal with the present situation? One of the first steps is to see that the cash reserves at the banks are ample for all occasions. That can be done by the Bank of England. The Bank must buy enough securities to maintain, and, if necessary, increase, the cash reserves of the joint stock banks, and, therefore, bank deposits. Secondly, is there any reason why we should not write up the value of the gold held by the Bank of England from the fictitious figure of 85s. to the real figure of 139s., and use it? Thirdly, we can afford to borrow for all expenditure on rearmament which can be described as capital expenditure, and, when hard pressed, there is a lot of expenditure which we can describe as capital expenditure. For that reason, I would borrow while the going is good. It is a very good time for borrowing at present.
But the last way, and the best way I submit, would be to obtain the co-operation of the United States in whatever economic policy we decide to pursue, because together we can do in half the time whatever we want to do. We can raise world commodity prices to a level at which it will pay primary producers all over the world to produce. Without this, it is difficult to see how we can get that revival of trade upon which we must ultimately depend, especially in the British Empire, because the markets of the Empire depend on the purchasing power of the people who live in the Empire, and that depends on the prices received by primary producers If necessary, we ought to open up these markets and extend them by credit. And I would say at this stage how much I think hon. Members on all sides welcome the decision of the Chancellor the other day to provide greater facilities or rather to restore some of the facilities which once existed for lending money overseas. We cannot get on without exports, however much Sir Oswald Mosley—I think he is the only one who thinks so—assures us that we can.
It is sometimes said that our markets are too much dependent on the United States, and move too much according

to whether the trend there is up or down; but the explanation is simple. At present, the United States are the marginal consumers of commodities. If the United States are in the market buying commodities, producers make a profit; if not, they make a loss. It is not surprising when you come to think that in Russia and Germany and many of the small countries of Europe there is a closed economy, while in the Far East there is more or less paralysis. I want to ask hon. Members, and particularly those on the Liberal benches, who are always talking so much about this trade agreement with America, what they think that a mere agreement to reduce a few tariffs is going to do, unless we get a wide agreement on fundamentals between this country and the United States, if you have prices gyrating as madly as they have been doing in the last six months. The word "tariffs" goes to the heads of hon. Members on the Liberal benches like wine. Whenever you mention the word "tariff," you see them getting flushed. Let them not be carried away by that. We are all in favour of tariff reduction, but let us get down to essentials first, and then I believe there will be nothing that will do more good than a trade agreement of the kind hon. Members are so keen on. To get it, I would go to great lengths. I would even go to the length of endeavouring to get a debt settlement with the United States; and I believe that, with good will on both sides, we could get it.
I would, therefore, urge His Majesty's Government to enter into negotiations with the Government of the United States with this object in view. It is by far the most constructive step that could be taken to-day. The alternative is a dire one. It is to turn the British Empire into a closed economic system of the same kind as prevails to-day in Russia, Germany and other countries. It would mean high tariff walls, quotas, possibly exchange control, intensive development inside and barter trade only with countries outside. I believe some hon. Members on the Labour benches would look with some favour on a development of this kind, because it would mean a certain Socialism, but it would also mean a lower standard of life all round. If we have to do this, we can; but I hope we shall not have to, because the doctrine of a closed economy is a dangerous one,


and it is by the other road that the greater prosperity and the greater hope of peace lies. The burden of debts presses on us all, but it has been proved all through history that there is only one way of lightening the burden of debts fairly, and without imposing unnecessary hardships, and that is by adapting monetary values to the new conditions. I am sure I will carry my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh on this. The tripartite currency agreement between the United States, France and ourselves must shortly come to be reconsidered and renewed, and I hope that the Government will not hesitate to take steps to lighten the crushing burden of debts should they deem it necessary by raising the price of gold.
There is only one thing that will make another world war inevitable and that is, another world slump. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know full well that most of the troubles confronting us to-day and the difficulties of Europe, including the rise of Hitlerism and the Nazi party, and the civil war in Spain, can be traced back in origin to the economic slump of 1929–30 far more than to any specific political cause. If you want to avoid another world slump, and, therefore, another world war, which the world in its present position cannot resist if much greater economic pressure is put upon it, you will have to substitute an inflationary for a deflationary trend. The greatest asset of the democracies of the world to-day is their economic strength. Some of this strength has been unnecessarily dissipated during the past nine months. We cannot afford to dissipate any more of our strength at so critical a moment of history. We have to husband our resources and concentrate all our energies upon rebuilding our strength through prosperity.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
realising that the burden of national and local expenditure must be judged by the equity of its incidence and by the purposes for which it is imposed, is of opinion that the maintenance and extension of the social services are an essential part of the national well-being, and is therefore convinced that it is the duty of the State to develop the national resources to the full and utilise them for the common good.
The whole House will be grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle

of Thanet (Captain Balfour) for having provided it with the opportunity of discussing this matter, even though he may now be beginning to feel the weight of gloom which has fallen upon him after the speech of his hon. Friend. The Amendment is to be seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall), who intends specially to deal with questions of local rating and will address himself, no doubt, to that portion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's subject. I also believe that the whole House will await with impatience the reply of the Financial Secretary to the inflationary proposals of the hon. Gentleman. I do not see occasion for the excessively sombre outlook which the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet appeared to take. Sir Josiah Stamp a few months ago defined a pessimist as a man whose glass was half empty and an optimist as a man whose glass was half full. There is no more justification for the sombre outlook which the hon. Member takes than there has been for the sombre outlook which has always been taken at recurring periods when people have addressed themselves to this problem. The hon. Member said that we should be involved in the law of diminishing yields, that we were in danger of lacking taxable reserves and were living up to our national income. That has always been the view on this matter from the other side of the House when the Conservative party has been in office. They seem to suffer from some sort of "Bourbonic" plague.
In 1901 the late Sir Austen Chamberlain said that Income Tax as high as one shilling reacted directly upon the amount of employment for the people of this country, and Sir Evelyn Cecil in the same Debate described the tax as a very dangerous departure, only to be defended as an emergency tax. Two years later Mr. Joynson-Hicks said that an Income Tax of one shilling abolishes the reserve fund of the country and affects both profits and wages. Mr. J. F. Mason, who was always interested in these currency matters, said that to increase Estate Duty would lead to a very considerable depletion of capital and could only be accompanied by scarcity of employment growing greater from year to year. The increase of the Income Tax from one shilling to five shillings in the £ has not been accompanied by the gloomy


consequences which were prophesied some 30 years ago, and, therefore, the gloomy prophecies of the hon. Member are not likely to be any more accurate than they were then.
What is meant by the so-called burden of taxation? I make a very modest contribution to the State twice a year in the form of Income Tax. I cannot regard my Income Tax payment as a burden, for when I have made that payment I am still left, modest though it may be, with an income sufficient to enjoy a tolerable existence. People whose Income Tax contribution is greater than mine is are obviously left with a larger income with which they may enjoy an even more tolerable life. There is no such thing as the burden of taxation upon an individual, so long as he is left with an income to enable him to enjoy a tolerable existence. There is a burden of taxation which has been weighted more heavily by the financial and trade policy of the present Government, and that is the burden of indirect taxation.
The whole process of taxation in the immediate post-war years was in the direction of increasing the weight of direct taxation and decreasing the weight of indirect taxation. Indirect taxation in the immediate post-war years was 54 per cent. of the total national revenue, and it fell in the last financial year of the second Labour administration to less than 40 per cent. of the total national revenue. In the last 12 months or so it has risen to somewhere between 47 and 48 per cent. of the total national revenue. The weight of indirect taxation has been increased at the expense of working-class standards of life in the last three or four years by the financial and trade policy of the present Government. In that sense there is, therefore, a very serious burden of taxation, since out of an income of less than £150 a year, something like 15 per cent. is required for indirect taxation purposes. The weight of taxation, whether it be direct or indirect, can only be reduced in one or two ways.
There are three major items of budgetary expenditure all of which deserve a little attention in order that the House may inquire whether, in any or all of them, some financial economy might be made. First of all, there is the National Debt. Hon. Friends on this side

of the House would join with anybody else in any other quarter of the House who sought to find a way of relieving society of the burden of the rentier class. That can only be done either by further conversion arrangements, which seem unlikely, or by lowering the total capital burden of the debt itself. I do not wish to be accused of being hypercritical in this matter, except that I will inquire whether anybody in this House now believes that the astronomical figure of £8,000,000,000 can really ever be liquidated, either completely or substantially. If it cannot be liquidated completely or partially, how is the National Debt problem to be faced in order that the weight of the annual interest charge may be reduced?

Mr. Maitland: Is the hon. Member content with the suggestion he is making, that the National Debt should be repudiated, together with the savings invested by friendly societies and co-operative societies?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt me and to misrepresent what I have said. I made no suggestion of National Debt repudiation, nor does the party with which I am associated do so. I am merely submitting a very serious and weighty problem to the consideration of the House. We have to-day a capital debt burden of £8,000,000,000, on which there is an annual interest charge of £200,000,000 to £300,000,000. I am asking whether there is any way of economising on the annual National Debt charge. If there is, how can it be done? There are only two ways and one is by liquidation, complete or partial, by repayment. There is little chance of that being done, because in each successive year the National Debt burden has been added to by the financial policy of the Government. If the National Debt cannot be liquidated by repayment, completely or partially, what are we to do? Is the debt to go on being added to year by year with a consequential increase of the annual debt charge, or is there some other method that we can apply to it?

Mr. Boothby: In so far as you raise the price of gold, pro tanto you reduce the National Debt.

Mr. Ridley: But you leave the figure in a Budgetry sense, and it will not stand still. It will continue to grow. I do not


want to be regarded as to heterodox, but I would say that the Government must regret that 15 years ago they rejected the capital levy suggestions of our party. There seems to be no possibility of any substantial economy in the annual National Debt charge.
In discussing the expenditure on the Armed Forces I do not want to make a cheap party point when I say that that expenditure is an expression of foreign policy. In the six or seven years since the Labour Government were in office there has been added to the annual expenditure on the Armed Forces £100,000,000 or more a year, if the borrowing charges are taken into consideration. When we left office six or seven years ago the League of Nations was an instrument of authority, Europe was a peaceful Continent, looking forward hopefully to disarmament and social expenditure. Although the present Government cannot be accused of the whole responsibility for the grave deterioration in international affairs and international security, yet it must bear a very heavy burden of responsibility. I am afraid that the deterioration in the authority of the League and international security is interpreted in the tremendously heavier expenditure that we have been required to make in connection with the Armed Forces of the Crown. In the last year that my friends were in office we were spending £107,000,000 on the Armed Forces, and in 1936–37 the figure was £186,000,000. Hon. Members who endorse with enthusiasm the policy of the Government in this matter must grin and bear the position until there is a return to an international policy which will change the trend towards world arms and the present world policy.
The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion repudiated the idea that they seek any economy in the social services. There will not be one hon. Member who would not accept their personal denial, but I wish they could speak with the same authority and the same emphasis for every member of the political party with which they are associated. Many hon. Members will recollect that six or seven months ago a series of articles appeared in the "Evening Standard," written by its city editor, Mr. S. W. Alexander, in which a fairly weighty attack was made on several branches of expenditure in the social services, and severe economies were called for. It is

not, therefore, for the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Motion but for other members of his party to tell us specifically that they do not approach this subject with a desire to cut down the social services. There must be no economy in the social services but rather development and expansion.
In what direction could there be economy? Educationally, we compare very unfavourably with a considerable number of European countries and some of our own Dominions. So far from its being possible to assume that there can be any contraction in the expenditure on education, it is known that every educationist worthy of the name and even the Board of Education itself are clamouring for an expansion of educational expenditure. Secondary education for all up to 16 years of age and the establishment of nursery schools, are demanded. With regard to the health services, does any one suggest that maternity service, infant welfare, and school feeding services lend themselves to any kind of economy? Of course they do not. These and other social services call to the country for considerable expansion, even if that expansion calls for new revenue from new taxable sources. We are compelling 2,000,000 of our people who are unemployed to live a sub-standard life, a standard of life which denies to them physical efficiency, which impairs their capacity to resist disease and is creating a new social problem of a very grave kind for the next 20 or 25 years. Our social service system has been wrung by the work propaganda of my hon. Friends out of a succession of reluctant capitalist Governments. There will be no economy in these services except by bitter political conflict. Some economists on the other side of the House may tell us how far the wider distribution of income and purchasing power through the medium of the social services has contributed in a very substantial degree to providing us with economic stability in the very difficult position of the last 10 years.
Taxation must be justified by the purposes for which that taxation is imposed. If a heavy burden is imposed upon our people and the revenue derived is used in an extravagant fashion, then it may be called a burden of taxation, but if, as is the case in our social services, it is used for urgently-needed and desirable


social purposes, then in no sense can it be ascribed as the burden of taxation. We shall continue to strive for economic equality. It may be said with truth that the political equality and the political democracy of the last 25 years have been largely built up as a result of the work of my hon. Friends on these benches. We stand for economic democracy and economic equality, which can only come from an expansion of those services which I fear many hon. Members opposite would desire to contract.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I beg to second the Amendment.
We shall all agree that it has been moved in a very clear and cogent speech which makes it unnecessary for me to extend my remarks to any great length. I feel that the speeches of the mover and seconder of the Motion can be described in a phrase used by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) as presenting an outlook of inspissated gloom. I do not think the picture is quite as bad as that. Frankly, I do not quite understand what the Motion means. It starts with recognising the great measure of economic recovery and social progress which have been achieved during the last five years. We all recognise that some improvement has taken place, and we can all pay a tribute to the social progress that has taken place during the last five years. Then it talks about the exceptional expenditure entailed by the necessity for rearmament. Are hon. Members so much concerned about rearmament that they are prepared to tell the Government that they are not going to vote for it? They do not say that. The sting of the Motion is in the tail. There is rather more than a hint that they are really concerned about the increasing expenditure on the social services. That is what I feel about the Motion, and I propose to devote my remarks to that particular matter.

The Amendment, I think, is quite clear. It says that expenditure must be judged by the equity of its incidence and the purposes for which it is imposed. That is a statement with which everyone will agree. The Amendment says, further, that the maitenance and extension of the social services are absolutely vital to the national well-being. We shall all agree with that.

Then it says that the resources of the nation should be used for the nation's good. That is a principle with which 20 years ago every thinker and social reformer would have agreed, but I rather imagine that there is a school of thought to-day who would not subscribe to it and, therefore, it is well that we should assert it on every possible occasion. If the political fights of the future are going to be staged on that battleground, there can be no more worthy battleground, and we shall enter into the fray with very high spirits.

It is difficult to understand why the Motion has been brought forward unless hon. Members desire to advocate a reduction in local expenditure. There are two classes of expenditure, one the expenditure on weapons of war and the other expenditure on things relating to peace. I am not going into the question of war expenditure and discuss its merits or de merits, but we shall all agree that expenditure on weapons of war is an enormous burden on the taxpayer. The Mover and Seconder of the Motion did not say that they were prepared to see this expenditure reduced, but talked sweetly about inflation and deflation. They did not get to the very roots of the matter. There is also the expenditure on the social services, the benefits from which go directly into the homes of the people and become translated into food, shelter, clothes and comfort. If it is intended to cut down that expenditure— we got a hint from the Mover when he said that the people must have patience as far as social reform is concerned—

Captain Balfour: I said as far as extension is concerned.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. and gallant Member must know that the nation is committed to an extension of the social services. It is impossible to avoid it. In nearly all avenues of social service the Government are committed to an extension, and if there is any reduction in the amount spent on social services it means that someone is going to suffer in comfort, food, clothing and housing. I think it was the Prime Minister who remarked about the colossal expenditure on the fighting services. It is indeed a strange commentary on modern civilisation that the nations of the earth should pour untold wealth into the manufacture of these things at a time when the populations have


an unrivalled mastery over production. I heard a speaker say that we have such a power over production that we are veritably standing on the threshold of a millennium, but that we have not the wit to open the door. If the Prime Minister could eliminate national jealousies and bring the nations of the earth to a state of sanity in which they would cease to spend these colossal sums on these things, he would confer a blessing on the human race which would pass all human imagination. The £400,000,000 which we spend on our social services would be a mere fleabite. If that could be done there would be a release of wealth which would enable us to build up our social state to the condition which the greatest minds of the past ages dreamt about. But until we get to that age of sanity we are going to experience withered hopes, frustrated efforts, shattered ideals and crushing taxation.
National expenditure has been dealt with, and I want to say a few words about local government. I say that it is the most democratic government on the face of the earth, probably more democratic than Parliament itself. The ratepayers have it in their hands whom they shall send to the councils, and they have an opportunity every year to change the complexion of their councils. The responsibility rests upon them. There has been an increase in the total indebtedness of local authorities. I cannot confirm the figures given by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), but I know there has been an actual increase in their indebtedness. Those who have been in local government for 20 years know that the pace has been very fast, but that is something which I do not regret, but rather glory in.
Many hon. Members were acquainted with pre-war industrial towns. They will remember the 25,000 or 30,000 back-to-back-houses, 50 or 60 to the acre. Those houses were inextricably mixed up with both heavy and light factories and industries. When the tenants looked out of their windows they had nothing to look upon except filthy streets, or the backs of other houses. Until recent times there was no modern sanitation; there were privy middens and disease-spreading ash middens. There were no bathrooms in the houses and sometimes the tenants had to fetch their water from stand pipes which served as many as 20 houses in a street. There were no open spaces, and

children had to play in the streets. If one looked at the figures of infantile mortality associated with those places, one would find that they were enormously high, probably from 150 to 200 per thousand. To-day it has been stated from the benches opposite, with justifiable pride that infantile mortality has gone down to 57 per thousand.
Consider the children who lived in those old pre-war industrial towns. In those days there was no school feeding, no school medical service and no dental service. The education which the children received was apt to be given in very old, grim and cold schools. I have seen children from those places going to the factories, and almost without exception they look starved in body and mind. They were ill-clad and under-fed. There were no maternity and child welfare clinics, and very little was done to help the mother or the prospective mother in one of the greatest crises of her life. The blind went about the streets begging for bread, for no Blind Persons Act was on the Statute Book. Everybody knows about the Poor Law. Its administration was characterised by a repressiveness which was a disgrace to the country. There was no Unemployment Act, and as soon as a slump came upon those cities, soup kitchens were set up everywhere in the industrial areas. The poverty and destitution was terrible. There was no Health Insurance Act. Those were the social conditions in the pre-War industrial towns. They provided thousands of social reformers with food for agitation, and it is because so many entered into the fray and agitated for better conditions that an improvement has been brought about.
There has been a marvellous improvement, and we ought to pay a tribute to it. Sometimes I describe it as a peaceful revolution, for it is nothing less. I will not go into the statistics, but will say briefly that we feed school children, we have taken the blind off the streets, we have instituted medical services for school children, we have passed the Health Insurance Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, and we have built new schools. If anybody who received his education in one of the old schools goes into one of the new ones, he will be surprised by the beautiful classrooms, in practically all of which there is sunshine. I think that any hon. Member


who says that he wants to put a stop to this kind of social progress is doing something of which he does not know the effect.
I have taken some figures from one of the Blue Books with regard to school medical inspections. In 1935, routine inspections amounted to 1,729,493, special inspections to 1,257,790, and children re-inspected to 1,998,894; that is to say, there were 3,366,818 children inspected in 1935 for dental treatment alone, and 68 per cent. of those children required treatment of some kind or another. We cannot mention the school medical service without paying a tribute to Sir George Newman, a wonderful educationist. In the Blue Book to which I have referred, it is stated:
It was due to his enthusiasm largely that we have built up a system of vigilant care for the health of the children in our schools, and the younger generation of to-day owes much to the skill that he devoted to the task of freeing them from the handicaps of disease and of physical and nutritional defects. The benefits they have derived cannot be revealed by statistics, but it is true that at no previous time in our history has the health and general condition of the children in our schools been as good as it is to-day.
Sometimes we build monuments to very distinguished citizens, but I think that is the best monument that could be given to any man. The health of the school children has been increased to the extent it has owing to the enthusiastic and disinterested efforts of a man like Sir George Newman. I am retailing these things in order to show that local authorities have been compelled to increase their expenditure as a consequence of the social services, in which these matters are very important. There are to-day 225 education authorities which provide free meals, and in 1935 the total number of individual free meals provided, excluding milk, was 25,250,000. Free milk meals amounted to above 42,000,000 during the year. I think that represents a very fine contribution to the health of our school children.
I agree with the hon. Member that local authorities' expenditure has gone up all over the country, and that their debt has increased; but we can easily get a wrong impression in this matter. I think the first cause of it is housing; the second, trading undertakings; the third, education costs; and the fourth, public assistance costs. It may be said that those

four heads, while they may not quite include every increase in local authority expenditure, account for a great deal of it. From those four heads, one can immediately eliminate one—trading undertakings—in which there has been a very great outlay of capital during the last 10 years. Let me give the House an illustration of what I mean. I am intimately associated with local government in Sheffield, and I know some of its institutions pretty well. I have taken the trouble to get out some figures. The Sheffield transport undertaking is one of the finest in the country; I am not giving it a free advertisement; it is reckoned to be so. The debt outstanding on the undertaking is £647,000, but when I tell hon. Members that that undertaking is worth £3,000,000, they will agree, I think, that instead of being a liability, it is a fine businesslike asset. We have a market undertaking in Sheffield, the outstanding debt on which—I exclude the abattoir—is £318,000. But there is one site comprised in that market undertaking which is worth £300,000. There, again, the assets offset the liability.

Mr. Louis Smith: Will the hon. Member tell the House from what source he derives the figure of £3,000,000 which he gives as the value of the transport undertaking in Sheffield? Who would give £3,000,000 for that system?

Mr. Marshall: I should say that if the Sheffield Corporation were to put their transport undertaking up for sale to-morrow there are many private individuals in this country who would give £3,000,000 for it. I am not speaking without authority. I have taken the trouble to get the figures from the city treasurer of Sheffield who is one of the cleverest city treasurers in the country, and whose figures can be accepted. The total debt on the city is £26,000,000 of which £10,000,000 is reproductive, being invested in trading undertakings. Nearly £10,000,000 is for housing alone. In other words, the corporation owns £10,000,000 worth of property. Of that total debt £5,000,000 is for non-reproductive undertakings. It is estimated that the city's assets exceed the amount of the total debt by no less than £14,000,000.
In other great industrial cities of the country one can find the same state of affairs. It is inevitable that local authorities' expenditure will increase. The


housing programme of this country since the Armistice, has meant that one-third of the total population of England and Wales has been moved from the centres to the suburbs of our cities. Take the case of any one city in the country and it will be found that that proportion is not far wrong. If you transfer 10,000 people from the centre of a city and re-house them a mile or two miles away, what does it involve? First, it is necessary to build schools, and a school cannot be built for less than about £60,000. Then sewers, water supply, electricity supply and all kinds of building work become necessary. The local authority has to provide all the services which go to the creation of a separate town and that cannot be done without expenditure.
I have figures here to show how this affects the other services of the city. I leave out for the moment public assistance. I take the year 1928, because that is the year from which the Mover of the Motion dated his comparisons. In 1928, our figure for the net cost of education, elementary and higher, was £377,000. To-day that has increased to £506,000. The increase has not been due merely to the fact that teachers are being paid higher salaries or that there is a greater number of children in the schools. It is largely due to the fact that we have had to go out to the new housing estates and build many new schools. In 1928 the city was paying £9,000 a year for free meals for school children. To-day we are paying £17,000 for that service. Is it suggested that that service should be cut down in the interests of national economy? Medical inspection 10 years ago was costing the city £24,000. To-day it is costing £33,000 a year.
Ten years ago the interest and sinking fund on money borrowed for housing represented £23,000. To-day it has reached the figure of £67,000 and we cannot draw a line after that figure yet; in fact, the job is not yet half done. Probably no nobler or more precious work has ever been done by a local authority than the provision of these houses. People have been taken away from congested city centres and rehoused in places where the dwellings are 12 to the acre instead of 50 or 60 to the acre, where they have gardens and views over the open country. Who can tell what effect this will have

on the minds and the character of the people as the years pass? Is it suggested that we should put a stop to such work as that in the interests of national economy? I say, a thousand times "No." To do so would disappoint every social reformer in the country.
It may be that we here shall not see the full effects of this great new development but as those who are children now grow up in the beautiful surroundings of these housing estates, the new generation will have better ideals and better ideas of life than their fathers. I think I have said enough to show the wonderful work that is being done by local authorities. It would be, I submit, a disaster if in the interests of some idea of national economy, we were to check the expansion of these social services. My view is that we ought to continue to develop them, and give greater opportunities to local authorities to carry on this great work which will ultimately redound to the welfare of the poorest part of the community.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Russell: The Seconder of the Amendment has drawn for us a wonderful and true picture of the development of our social services during the last 10 years, and in doing so he has made me become reminiscent, for before there was any such thing as a Labour party I remember standing on the tailboard of an illuminated furniture van, having taken a picture of the slums on Mersey side, and talking to the electors of the necessity for starting that very campaign of housing which has continued to this day. That is something like 40 years ago. Not only that, but some of us remember the experiences which we had in the old days when we commenced this work of medical treatment in the schools and all the other varied social services, and with that record behind us I have no hesitation in saying how glad I am that this Motion has been brought forward to-day and that we are having a discussion on the vexed question of economy in regard to expenditure.
This House is responsible, and takes its responsibility seriously, for the supply of money by taxation, but if there is one thing more than another that has struck me since I have been a Member of this House it has been the almost complete absence of any real oversight of the expenditure of the money which is supplied. The Seconder of the Motion spoke


of the need for a closer connection between the central and local services for this purpose, and I believe that we could, without entrenching on social services at all, do very much in the way of reduction of expenditure by a more complete system of investigation as to how the money is spent. Not only is that the case in regard to our national services, but it is also the case in regard to our civic services. There is no doubt about it that the civic stride is a very expensive thing in this country, and it is that civic stride which from time to time needs to be investigated and corrected with a view to seeing how far we are getting value for our money. Let us not forget that to-day, as compared with the old days of 30 or 40 years ago, we have a vast expenditure, and if we could, by a careful investigation of expenditure, curtail that cost by, say, 5 or 10 per cent., we should have the money to increase our social services and to make them more effective than they are to-day.
I think it is the experience of all those who have had anything to do with administration that economy and efficiency go hand in hand, and it is for that economy and efficiency that I welcome this discussion. Take as an example of what can happen that much abused and very interesting episode in our national life called the Addison housing scheme. I simply use it as an illustration. I happened to be responsible for much municipal work at that time. We started to provide houses fit for heroes to dwell in, and what was the result? My hon. Friend who has just spoken about Sheffield, if he would carry his mind back, would remember what happened at that time. The cost of housing rose until it became impossible to build. It went up from the neighbourhood of £250 per house to £900 and even as high as £1,200. It fell to my lot at that time to visit the housing schemes that were being developed, and I saw what was going on. I saw the easy way with which the workers went about their work, I saw what the small castings trust did with prices, I saw what happened in every phase of that housing campaign at that time, until at last we had to call the job off and stop the work. There was an outcry, but what happened? In 12 or 18 months' time we made a further attempt, and we found that what had cost £900

when we stopped the work had suddenly and definitely come down to the neighbourhood of £300 or £350. We were enabled then to go on.
If we in this House could develop some system of more careful supervision of the expenditure of money, we should be able to develop a considerable degree of economy and at the same time get better conditions for our people. I do not want to labour the point too much. We are supposed to have some supervision from the Ministry of Health in this matter of local expenditure, but I am not impressed with that supervision. I think we need a closer collaboration between central and local government, and as I look round this House sometimes and realise the amount of ability and energy which might be tapped in this House if we could get together, I think that if the Treasury or some other Department of the Government would work out a system whereby we could co-operate more together, we could, without entrenching on social services at all, bring about a better state of economy in spending than we have at the present time. With that object in view, I welcome the discussion to-night.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: It has been extraordinarily pleasant to listen to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. R. J. Russell) telling us his reminiscences of the old Liberal days. Of course, boys will be boys, and it has been good to hear the hon. Member recapturing his old enthusiasm. I was glad also to listen to the eloquence of the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) in describing our social services, by which I was very much moved. I could not help thinking, as he rolled out measure after measure and Act after Act, how much of that took its origin from that Government between 1906 and 1914 in which Liberals and hon. Members above the Gangway were co-operating together. It was indeed a time which, I think, has not been equalled or approached ever since. I am glad that this Motion has been brought before the House, and I think that the hon. Member for Thanet was quite right, and quite justified, in reminding this House of its original function, because I suppose it was the original function of this House to be a guardian of expenditure, to scrutinise all the money for which His Majesty asks with the greatest care, and


to see that all grievances are remedied before the grants of money are made. Having read the Motion and the Amendment with great care, I had at first a wild hope that I might be able to support both of them. That, of course, was a position which was agreeable to my Liberal mind—we are always seeking to find good in unlikely places. I "view with concern the continued growth of expenditure." That is an expression that is quite Gladstonian. I do not think that even in 1892 the Grand Old Man said anything more orthodox than that. But the seconder did not quite live up to that high standard when he said, "Borrow while the going is good." I came to the conclusion then that Mr. Gladstone would not have been as enthusiastic about Aberdeen as he would have been about Thanet.
What does this Motion mean? We heard a great deal from the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) about inflation, but I looked in vain for any sort of mention of that in the Motion.

Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member will forgive me. It speaks of "lightening the burdens."

Mr. Griffith: I see. That which is inflated is lighter; so, from the verbal point of view, the hon. Member has scored his point. Apart from that, if he says we should do everything in our power to lighten the burdens imposed upon taxpayers and ratepayers, any ordinary citizen—I mean someone living in a rather less rarified atmosphere than that of Aberdeen—would have thought he meant the reduction of expenditure. And I think that is how the hon. Member who proposed the Motion took it, as did everybody else in the House. If you are going to lighten burdens in that way it means an axe of some kind. I take it that the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) was, like George Washington, proposing to do it with his little axe, and I wanted to see where that axe was going to fall, because that is the all-important point for us. There are really only three classes of expenditure on which it can fall. The first is armaments, the second is subsidies, and the third is social services. With regard to armaments, I may be rash, but I should be prepared to bet a life's salary in this House that the Proposer did not mean that we should reduce expenditure on

armaments; and, provided the expenditure is wisely directed, I do not think that I should demand it myself in the present circumstances of the world. As for subsidies, I should indeed myself be anxious for a reduction, but I know from experience of subsidies that these daughters of the horseleech have a marvellous power of self-preservation. For, whatever axe may be wielded, their heads, in the words of the poet, will be "bloody but unbowed."
Therefore, we are really left with the social services, and I think that for that reason the hon. Members who proposed and seconded this Motion were fully justified in giving us a historical survey and an account of what the social services mean to us, because it is really quite useless coming before this House and proposing vague Motions in favour of economy unless you say what you are prepared to cut down. It is so easy to say, in Gladstonian phrase, that the money fructifies in the pockets of the people, but, if it is to do that, from where are you going to take the money? We have had no clear indication about that to-night, except the suggestion about inflation, which was probably clear to some hon. Members, but was not altogether clear to me.

Mr. Boothby: That is not my fault.

Mr. Griffith: But it does seem to me that if we are to carry out this Motion in the sense in which any ordinary person would understand it, there have to be victims of the axe, and the social services are a predestined sacrifice. Of course that would mean sapping the vitality of the nation. It would take effect perhaps gradually. I mean, if you cut down education there might be a few school teachers who would jump over a bridge into the Thames, but a Government with so many preoccupations and responsibilities might not notice that. But tragedies of that kind are gradual and not immediate. It is only perhaps when we are fighting the next war, and after the next war, that we should find how much of the lifeblood of the country had been taken out of us by that kind of economy. I cannot forget also that we have seen these specimens of economy campaigns before, which have taken the wrong direction. I cannot help remembering the old London County Council elections in the days of the Moderates and


the Progressives. There was a horrible picture of a man pointing his finger and saying, "It's your money we want." Well, everybody knows now that that poster was the sign and propaganda of a most reactionary administration. It is not denied. Nobody would go back to it to-day, and I am afraid that if this Motion, the actual phraseology of which is almost unexceptionable, became the order of the day what it would actually do would be to start a campaign against the social services, because that is the only way in which it would be carried out at the present time. It is for that reason that I want to support the Amendment.
We have heard upon some of these occasions ingenious arguments that by taxation and rating you are so diminishing the purchasing power of the people that you are causing unemployment. I am glad we did not have that suggestion to-night. I am rather surprised, because it is heard only on these occasions, and it seems rather inexplicable on the consuming side. Imagine an entirely wasteful form of expenditure. If you employed an entirely redundant civil servant—which the National Government would never think of doing, I am sure—and if you were to get a man of the very highest character at an even higher salary, and set him to do nothing all day except draw pictures on his blotting paper, as a producer he would be a failure, but as a consumer he would probably be a brilliant success. I mean, human nature being what it is, he would probably have a wife and several children. and the children would need boots, and the wife would need clothes, while he himself would need cigarettes and beer, and all the rest of the comforts of civilised life. Thus as a consumer he would be a great success. I am not defending the institution of such employment as an economic proposition. But where it breaks down is solely on one point, on the production point; the man is doing nothing.
It seems to me that the function of the House of Commons with regard to that civil servant, whom I regard as a symbol of all kinds of Government expenditure, is to see that we get value for our money. That is what we are sent here for. It is no good merely trying to terrify us with astronomical figures of what is spent. That

is only presenting one side of the balance sheet, and you have to look at both sides. Even these enormous figures for armaments, much as I regret the occasion for them, are supposed to produce for us an asset, the most priceless asset in the world, that of national safety. I am not at all sure that they are producing that, I wish I were, but that is what they are aiming at. All the social services, in their turn, are represented by priceless assets, which do in fact preserve the fabric of this nation, and anybody who is presenting a balance sheet ought to put forward both sides of it.
Our task now, as superintendents of the national finance, is that which I have just stated—to see that for every penny that we collect from the taxpayer or the ratepayer a pennyworth of value is given to the nation. I would apply that impartially to every kind of expenditure. With regard to armaments expenditure, I would say, let us be perfectly certain that profiteering is not taking advantage of the national emergency; let us be sure that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence is really co-ordinating something and getting on with his job. With regard to subsidies, which I regret in principle, I would say, at least let us see that when the nation's money is handed over to private individuals it is being spent to some account on national purposes. When we come to social services, too, I would say, by all means let us superintend with the greatest exactitude and care the expenditure of that money so as to see that the money, which is the people's, is not spent entirely in the maintenance of bureaucracy.
I was a little surprised that supporters of the Government, which has introduced so many boards and other new bodies, should come forward now and ask us to scrutinise expenditure on the administration. If, however, they are ready to economise on those lines they will have the support of my hon. Friends and me. If I thought that the Motion meant that and nothing more, I would be glad to support it, but it is because, for the reasons I have endeavoured to put before the House, I can only see in it a threat to the social services, which I regard as of the utmost value and whose preservation and extension I desire to see carried on, that I must heartily support the Amendment.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Maitland: The House is always interested in the observations of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, but at least one section of it will be disappointed in the attitude he has taken. This is a Motion which I expected the Liberal party to support. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman supports the Amendment to the extent of the Mover of the Amendment in enunciating a strange doctrine in regard to the burden of taxation. He said there was no such thing as a burden of taxation on the individual so long as the individual can enjoy a tolerable existence. If that is the basis on which the Liberal party supports the Amendment I am disappointed. I had hoped the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) would pay greater regard to the speeches of my hon. Friends who brought forward the Motion, for they made it plain that no attack on the social services was intended. The hon. Members have clone a service to the House and to the social services by bringing to the notice of the House the position of the country, particularly in view of the fact that we have so seldom an opportunity of reviewing matters which are of great concern to a section of the community whom we all desire to help.
Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) I also made a few comparisons between expenditure this year and that of 1928–29. The second largest increase has been in respect of Defence charges, the amount being £85,000,000. That disregards the additional expenditure arising out of the issue of moneys under the Defence Loan Act, which, I think, was about £70,000,000. One would be very happy if circumstances made it possible for the Government to alter the policy they have been forced to adopt. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said that this expenditure represented the armed expression of our foreign policy. The real truth is that it is this country's answer to the armed activities of other countries. The hon. Gentleman and those who sit with him would be bound to agree that in the circumstances of the world as they are the Government have had no alternative but to embark on a huge expenditure in arms, which we all regret.

Mr. Ridley: That is what other countries say.

Mr. Maitland: As a private Member defending the policy of the Government which I support, I have no hesitation in saying that it is not a fair view to take that rearmaments began with us. They are the answer to the activities of other countries, and the truth is that this Government and preceding Governments of this country have taken grave risks in the cause of peace. Our example was not followed by other nations, and it would be a good thing indeed if it were realised throughout the world that there is a hopeless and useless waste of money on armaments. If it is any benefit to the hon. Gentleman to have that as my personal opinion, I say it without the slightest hesitation. I have never believed that armed forces themselves would prevent war. At the same time, I am bound to say that in view of the position of the world the Government had no alternative but to embark on the policy which they have adopted.
Let me get back to the comparison of expenditure I was making. The greatest increase. between 1929 and 1938 is on the social services, which have gone up from £241,000,000 to £383,000,000. It is interesting that in those years £145,000,000 was saved in respect of the charges on the National Debt. It is perhaps a coincidence that the whole of that saving has gone in increased expenditure on the social services. I am not complaining about that. The hon. Gentleman was unfair in his assertion that we on these benches are not concerned in developing and extending the best social services which are possible. Even the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough cannot claim that it was in the hey-day of Liberalism that there was the greatest expansion in the expenditure on social services. An interesting document—Cmd. Paper 5609—gives an informative account of expenditure upon public social services under certain Acts of Parliament, covering a period of 35 years at five given periods up to 1935. He who runs can read, and it is a document which I can recommend to any hon. Member interested in this matter. Those five years were 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930 and 1935. I will summarise the totals, which are a practical demonstration in pounds, shilling and pence of the


help which has been given by Governments in the past, not always Liberal or Labour Governments but, on the contrary, by Governments largely composed of gentlemen of the Conservative party. In 1900 the cost was £32,000,000. In 1910 it had risen to £55,000,000, and in 1920 to £271,000,000, though it has to be remembered that a good deal of this rise was accounted for by war pensions. Between 1920 and 1930 the expenditure rose to £413,000,000, and in 1935 it had reached £440,500,000. These figures will prove that those Members who are now being charged with wishing to reduce the social services are the very Members who in fact increased them up to the totals I have given.

Mr. K. Griffith: The hon. Member spoke of "hon. Members who are trying to reduce these social services." May I take it that that is the intention of this Motion?

Mr. Maitland: I said those who are accused of attempting to interfere with these services. Old age pensions did not exist in 1900. In 1910 only the modest sum of £6,000,000 was paid. In 1935 expenditure on pensions had increased, by reason of the introduction of new schemes, to £79,000,000. The expenditure on education was £17,000,000 in 1900 and £97,000,000 in 1935. On housing we spent in 1900 only £400,000, and by 1935 the expenditure was £42,000,000. Payments in respect of poor relief amounted in 1900 to £12,500,000 and in 1935 to £47,500,000.
We are apt in this House to make general statements without real regard to the figures, and I am surprised that a Liberal with the persuasive powers of the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough saying there is no value in pointing out these astronomical figures. What the House ought to do is to sit down and study the figures, and if they do they will agree that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet was only doing a wise thing in drawing attention to this very important question, because in it is involved the very standard of life of our people. What my hon. and gallant Friend and those who think with him are concerned about is that nothing shall be done which will in any way diminish the standard of life which is enjoyed by our people. Therefore, however hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal and Opposition benches may

criticise the precise terms of the Motion, it is only right that the attention of the House should be drawn to these progressively increasing figures of our expenditure on social services.
Further, whatever hon. Members who sit above the Gangway may say, there is in my judgment no one in this House who desires to do one solitary thing to diminish those services in any way whatever. On the contrary, we are just as anxious as any Member of the Labour party to maintain, expand and develop those services, and it is because we know that in the last resort the maintenance of those services is so entirely dependent upon the prosperity of our industries that we feel that it is wise for the House to consider the position which has been put before us to-day.
In the realm of local government expenditure we find the same story. Here I would say that I agree with the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) that we should not be too critical of local authorities respecting their expenditure. A great deal of it has been embarked upon either at the direct instance of the central government or subsidised by the central government. Let us look at the directions in which this local government expenditure goes. Twenty per cent. of it goes upon education, 25 per cent. on public, health services, 16 per cent. on poor relief and over 18 per cent. on highways and bridges. I am informed that during the last five or six years more than one-half of the net increase can be attributed to the expenditure on those four main services. The total amount of local authorities rate-borne expenditure in 1934–35 was no less than £340,000,000. Our pre-War Budget in this House was £200,000,000. Of that £340,000,000 expenditure rates contributed £158,000,000, Government grants £124,000,000 and miscellaneous revenue £58,000,000. Further, in that year another £78,000,000 was spent on capital works by local authorities. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for Brightside, there has been an enormous increase in the loan debt of local authorities since 1920. The total has risen from £495,000,000 to £1,321,000,000. As to the soundness of the securities behind those loans there is not the slightest doubt. That money is more than covered by very valuable assets; nobody need have any anxiety that the local authorities have engaged


in capital expenditure which is not represented by assets; but I think hon. Members can usefully devote some thought to this point: that from time to time, indeed almost regularly, very large expenditure on capital account is undertaken by local authorities throughout the country. That expenditure is in some degree apart from the expenditure on their every-day work, and the question which naturally comes to one's mind is, What is to happen supposing we should be passing from a relative degree of prosperity to the time when trade is not so good?
I agree with the hon. Member for East Aberdeen that capital expenditure by local authorities is not an instrument which we can use in order to deal with a major slump, but I think the attention of the competent authorities could very well be directed to this consideration: Is this expenditure of say £78,000,000 a year on capital account a reasonable instrument to be put into operation at times which trade and industry are less favourable in the country? I believe that the competent authorities, taking consultation together, can work out a plan which will be of real benefit not only to the local authorities themselves but to the country as a whole. I recognise that if we say we are not going to spend money when times are good, because it is then that prices are high, that we have to face the alternative that the local authorities should spend the money when conditions are depressed, and one of the difficulties there is that that is a proceeding which is rather against human nature.
Another aspect of the question on which I should like to say a word is the basis of local taxation. Nothing has been said on the subject of the way in which either National or local revenue is raised. I have ventured to make suggestions to the Government before on this question, and I suppose I can go on doing so, and that it will not have much effect. I do not say that unkindly, because I know what the difficulties are [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not suppose hon. Gentlemen will cheer so much when they hear what my conclusions are. In this country we raise anything from £75,000,000 to £80,000,000 a year in respect of estate duties. That is a capital sum. It has been going on for a good many years, yet comparatively nothing of that capital sum has been devoted to capital purposes. Year by year we spend,

for ordinary expenditure purposes, money which really represents capital income. In the years to come there will, I believe, inevitably be a reduction in regard to those items. This is a matter directly of interest to the House of Commons rather than outside. Whatever the virtues of a Government Department may be, they are not earners; they never earn money, but are very good spenders.
Local authorities asked the Minister of Health last December to consider the whole question of the basis of local taxation, and I think that matter can very properly be raised in this Debate. It is a very long time since there was any inquiry as to the basis of local taxation. True, the 1929 Derating Act made certain alterations, but there has been ample opportunity for information to be collected to show what the precise facts are as to how that Act has operated. That is another reason for examination. Alterations have been suggested from time to time with regard to the basis upon which local rates should be levied, and I think the local authorities are now entitled to receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government in asking for a departmental committee or a Royal Commission to investigate the whole of this question. If my right hon. and gallant Friend can say anything regarding it I shall be much obliged and I shall be glad if he will pass on the suggestions for the appointment of such a Commission or Committee to the proper quarter.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Almost exactly seven years ago to-day there was another Debate upon economy in this House, initiated not by back bench Members but by Members of what was then the Front bench opposition, consisting of the Conservative party who now adorn the benches opposite. The Motion was not couched in the gentle language in which the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) has expressed himself to-day. It took the form of a definite Motion of Censure upon the Government of the day which was, as older Members of the House will recollect, the Labour Government. The indictment which hon. Gentlemen made was very severe and, more in sorrow than in anger, they told us of the dire straits in which the country then was and of the grave consequences which would follow from a


continuance of the policy of that Government.
I have taken the trouble to look up some of the speeches which were made on that occasion in order to see the gravamen of the charges that were brought against my colleagues in the Labour Government. Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, who was then a Member of this House, opened the attack, and his criticism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day was that he was borrowing as much as £1,000,000 a week which upset and offset the Sinking Fund which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had professed to create. He said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been borrowing £1,000,000 a week and was
using it for current obligations which ought to be met out of revenue, and he shamelessly proposes to continue that course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1931; col. 431, Vol. 248.]
Sir Hilton Young, as he then was, who now graces another place under the title of Lord Kennet, said:
The first count in our indictment is that for the first time in the history of British finance the financial policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer permits … is the policy of a Budget which does not balance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1931; col. 458, Vol. 248.]
If we examine what the present Government are doing, we find that they have abolished the Sinking Fund, and, instead of borrowing at the rate of £1,000,000 a week, are borrowing over £1,500,000 a week in order to meet current expenditure. If the indictment was framed with any justice against the Labour Government of that day, surely it ought to be brought against the present Government in far stronger language, because they are doing infinitely more the things for which the Conservative party attacked so violently the Labour Government. Sir Robert Home, who is now a Noble Viscount, made, as his great accusation, this statement:
Whereas in 1913 we paid for our imports by visible exports to the extent of 82 per cent.,"—
in the year of the disgraceful Labour Government we were paying—
only 71 per cent. by visible exports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1931; col. 526; Vol. 248.]
I took the trouble to look up the proportion of the payments for imports by

visible export at the present time. For the year 1937 the figure of imports was £1,029,000,000 and for exports £597,000,000, and when I worked that sum out it did not make 82 per cent., or 71 per cent., but only 58 per cent. That is the great improvement that the present Government have effected in the position of our foreign trade. Other speakers showed how the position of the country with regard to unemployment is getting worse. I have turned up the figures for the growth of unemployment between September last and January of this year, and I find that the increase was no less than 500,000 in the number of the unemployed. That is the largest increase between September and January that has ever taken place in the history of unemployment insurance in this country, and it is certainly larger than any increase which took place during a similar period in the existence of the Labour Government.
Another charge which was made at that time was that there might be some rise in the price of gilt-edged securities, but that that was taking place owing to the drop in the price of equities, which had fallen very considerably in recent months. I do not think that any Member who has studied the Stock Exchange can deny that these facts are precisely paralleled at the present time. Indeed, the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) himself pointed out that there has been a fall of something like 20 per cent. in the value of equity shares. We must remember that at that time the Labour Government were tied to the Gold Standard, which made it much more difficult for them to extricate themselves from this difficulty. The present National Government came into office for the express purpose of preserving the Gold Standard, and the very first thing they did was to go off the Gold Standard, to the great benefit of the industry of the country, but against the precise object and intention with which they came into office.
It would have been very easy for my hon. Friends on these benches to have strongly supported the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet, and have given the present Government the tu quoque argument that they were taking the same line that was taken up in 1931. I am very glad that my hon. Friends have taken an entirely different course. Their


reason for doing so was that they saw that very much larger issues were involved than the mere chance of a party score against the Government of the day. They know, and I believe that every Member of the House realises, that economy Motions in the past have finally resulted in the axe, and the axe has been used to cut down the social services of this country. It was the case with the Geddes Axe, and it was the case with the axe that was employed in 1931. My hon. Friend the Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) resisted the temptation, therefore, to adopt the tu quoque argument, and chose the better course of explaining why we are not going to be jockeyed into voting for a further axe to destroy the great social services of this country.
The fact is that we have gone a long way from pure Gladstonian finance. Lord Snowden was, perhaps, the last believer in the strict principles of Gladstonian finance, but, even so far as he was concerned, the facts were too strong for him. He started with the intention of pursuing the principles of Gladstonian finance firmly to the end, but he departed from them root and branch, and though, at the instigation of hon. Members opposite, he came back to them afterwards, it was only to rue the day, when he discovered that he had been the means of putting in power the National Government who, when it suited their purposes, threw over all the principles that he cherished, and adopted courses, which we know only too well.
Why is it that to-day we cannot pursue exactly the lines which were thought so magnificent by this House in the days of Mr. Gladstone? The real reason is that the prime interest of the country is not solely concerned with its annual expenditure and revenue, but is also concerned with the building up of its capital. The great object of sound politics is to develop the capital resources of the country to the greatest extent that is possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) showed how large a part of the municipal debt consists of real assets that are, from the ordinary business point of view, part of the great capital wealth of this country; and even a part of the National Debt, exists in consequence of the various enterprises in connection with roads, housing and so on, which have been carried out by national expenditure. But even more important

than the capital which can be measured in pounds, shillings and pence is the human capital which is really the source of everything in this country to-day. The fatal defect of the economics of the nineteenth century was that they failed entirely to take account of that wealth of human capital. They were willing in the nineteenth century, when they had the industrial revolution, to develop the material capital of the country, not only with the aid, but actually at the expense, of the life and blood of the people of this country, which were an asset far more important than the mere material capital which they thought they were increasing so greatly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bright-side has enlarged considerably on that point, and I only desire to refer to one or two matters. Take the case of education—the education of the whole people, the increased education of the nation's children, and the further extended education of those who are going to be of special assistance to the nation. Can any Member of the House deny that the building up of that capital is of the very greatest importance? What private individual who has children is not prepared, if necessary, to borrow money in order that the education of his children may be carried out fully, and that they may be given the very best chance to develop their brains for the future? The building up of the education system of this country is of the utmost importance when we realise that in the days that are to come we are to face problems still more complicated and intricate than those which we have to solve at the present time.
Again, even to-day, after much has been done that was not done in days gone by, there is still very considerable under-nourishment of the people of this country. The children in the poorer schools are often as much as three inches shorter than the average, and their whole physique is equivalently inferior, owing to the fact that they do not obtain full nourishment and physical development. Can anyone properly deny that the increase of capital wealth by improving the physical condition of the people is of the utmost importance to the nation? Even taking merely the point of view of developing the bodies of those who are able to go as soldiers and fight in defence of this country. A great proportion of our


would-be recruits are rejected to-day because they are unfit. From that point of view alone, it is of fundamental importance that the bulk of our people should be strong and physically well-equipped.
But I would go a great deal further, and carry the matter into the field of sickness and disability, and argue that, in all those matters, the human capital development is of an importance compared with which other things must take a minor place. I cannot see why the great wealth which is in the country, the great inheritance built up by the invention, skill and wisdom of our forefathers, should be utilised merely for one section of the community and should not be available for the nation as a whole. It is our responsibility to see that these great assets of the past should be utilised for strengthening the sinew and developing the brain of our people, and giving to them those amenities of life to which those who are born citizens of this country are fully entitled.
In saying that, I do not rule out the necessity for adequate defence of this country, but I say that that adequate defence must be based on a sound foreign policy. We on these benches would disagree with a great deal of what has been done in the course of the years during which the National Government have been in office, and we believe that a very much smaller burden would have had to be borne if a better foreign policy had been adopted. I do not want to get away from the financial aspect, but I must make that point when saying that a certain amount must be spent on Defence. I and other hon. Members on these benches, and I think many hon. Members opposite, grudge the great amount that has to be spent on weapons of war that ought to be spent on making life better for our people as a whole.
That brings me to the question of the National Debt. Twenty-one years ago, I was standing as a candidate in a part of the country not far from the constituency which is represented by the hon. Member who seconded the Motion tonight, and I stood as a "Peace by Conciliation" candidate. I secured, as was to be expected, a very small proportion of the votes, and the policy I advocated was, of course, turned down. But I suggest that had peace by conciliation been

made in the year 1917, as it could have been made, on the mere monetary side, we should have stopped the War before a very large part of the debt had been incurred, and, also, we should have had a Europe that was much more peacefully inclined than the Europe of to-day. We should have had an opportunity of pursuing, in common with other nations, the peace of the world, instead of the enmity which is apparent in so many of the proceedings of nations at the present time. Therefore, I grudge a great part of the National Debt, and every penny of the expenditure upon rearmament, though I recognise that, on account of the mistaken policies which have gone on up to the present time, this country cannot remain defenceless in a world where other nations have adopted armaments upon a great scale.
I want to say a word or two about the monetary policy advocated by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen who seconded the Motion. He said frankly that there could be no reduction in expense, no additional taxation, and that the Bill could easily be met by a process of inflation, and I rather think he imagined that I should agree with him and say what a splendid speech he made in that respect. I certainly cannot take that view. I wonder what the hon. Member really envisages. He sympathises with the Government for borrowing, at a time when the Government said that there was no sign of slump whatever, £80,000,000 to unbalance the Budget. He proposes that any further divergence between expenditure and taxation should be met by further borrowing and inflation, but where is that process to end? If the difficulties created by inflation are to be met by more inflation, the hon. Member really must know that that merely means the debasement of money altogether.

Mr. Boothby: I think that what we are suffering from now is a direct consequence of a very sharp period of deflation, and I want inflation to take us back to a point at which commodity prices can be stabilised at a remunerative, and not an unremunerative level.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am quite willing to agree with the hon. Member that a certain measure of inflation was desirable in order to counteract the


terribly mistaken policy of deflation which was pursued in years gone by. But when the hon. Member said that it is perfectly simple to go on inflating and incurring expenditure without additional taxation, he is going a great deal beyond what can be supported.
What is the real trouble with these periods of booms and slumps, or advances and recessions, as they are called? It is that, under our present system, private enterprise, while the production of what are called consumption goods goes on at a fairly even pace, consumption of capital goods proceeds in jerks. When the business community think that there is going to be a profit, they produce capital goods far and above the normal. When they think that there is a recession coming, they shut down the production of capital goods and thereby create unemployment. The trouble is not a financial, but an economic one. The economic apparatus does not work, because, when we should be producing to the full extent of our capacity, our capital is lying idle and our human capital is being unemployed. The real object of inflation, apart from liquidation of liabilities, is to give this extra means for profit to private enterprise so that will make it continue to produce capital goods when it otherwise would not do so. We on these Benches do not think that that is the right method to adopt. We think that it is to the interests of the community as a whole to take control of the flow of production, so that instead of moving in fits and starts and producing things at one time in such a way that we are overworked and at another time having no work, with consequent unemployment for our people, we ought to have a continuous, regular production, based on a planned system of public economy. That is the view that we take.

The Amendment says that the real course to adopt is for the nation to develop to the full the resources of the country and to utilise them for the common good. That includes the idea that a change is required in the fundamental basis of our industrial system. As long as our system only works when there is a scarcity, we get an unsatisfactory balance. If we are to have a system which is going to produce steadily and produce for the public good, it must work

not only in scarcity but in abundance. The great trouble in civilised life to-day is that we can produce so easily. In days gone by in the history of the world the trouble was that we produced with such great difficulty. To-day, our trouble is not the failure to produce but the failure to sell the produce when it is made. That is not a natural but an artificial failure, and it is due to the system under which we live.

On these benches we believe that the people have a right to the social services and that the social services create a purchasing power which keeps trade going. My hon. Friend the Member for Claycross, in his excellent speech, referred to that point. I would reinforce his argument by an illustration from the United States. When I was there, 10 or 15 years ago, before they had tasted the slump, they jeered at our social services and at what they called our dole, and said that they knew a much better way, which was to refuse the dole. But when they were faced with the real slump they found that it was greater there than here, because they had no social services, and consequently they had nothing with which to keep up the purchasing power of the people. There was, therefore, a much greater recession of trade there than there has been in this country.

Social services are, of course, only a palliative. Unemployment benefit is only a necessary palliative, but it will continue to be necessary so long as we exist under a system which works only in scarcity, and which moves forward by fits and starts. When we are able to replan our industrial life, we can look forward to a better system of finance, and that better economic system will be reflected in better budgets for the national well being.

10.29 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The right hon. Gentleman rather contradicted the Seconder of the Amendment when he spoke about our present system as one which works only in scarcity. I think that all those who were present were moved by the vivid picture which the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) drew of the great improvement which our social services have brought about in the lives of the people in the industrial towns. That is due not to one party but the growing consciousness of


the people of this country as to the value of social services, and it has happened under a system which the right hon. Gentleman roundly condemned in his closing words. I should have liked to have followed the right hon. Gentleman and disputed his assertion that the cause of the present heavy Defence expenditure is the failure of the Government's foreign policy, but if I did so I should be led away from the central subject of the Motion. I can only say that I entirely disagree with his assertion in that respect and should be prepared on another occasion to argue the point. Probably had the advice of his party on foreign affairs been listened to we should have been engaged in hostilities by this time.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to a Debate which took place some years ago when his party was in office. I should like to refer to an occasion on a Wednesday evening eight years ago, when a private Member put down an economy Motion. He was a member of the Conservative party and put down a Motion calling on the Government of the day to exercise economy and bring about, if possible, a reduction in taxation. That Motion was ill-starred, because a member of the Labour party called for a count, and I regret very much that members of the Conservative party were not present in sufficient numbers to keep a House. The Motion was counted out at 16 minutes after eight o'clock. Even the Liberal party were not in sufficient numbers to keep a House. However, we have learnt from experience, and I am sure the Motion is going to have a better fate to-night. I hope it is a Motion which the House will pass because that would show a proper concern as to national and local finance.
There is need for such a question to be discussed. Any call for economy is like music in the ears of a Treasury Minister. I should like to dispel any notion that this is a spendthrift Government which is barely held in check by a cautious and frugal House of Commons. Under our system no money can be got or spent without the authority of Parliament. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, has important functions, and among them he has the task of meeting the first shock when there is a demand for fresh expenditure. To use an Army simile, the defence

is conducted in depth. The Financial Secretary may be overthrown by the attack which then rushes on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the Financial Secretary has to meet the first charge. Hon. Members may be interested to know that in the last Session I answered 452 Parliamentary questions, and spoke 132 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have tried to analyse the questions I have been answering and what I have been talking about, and I find that a very large proportion of the answers were made in resisting demands for fresh expenditure. There is, I repeat, no question of this being a spendthrift Government barely held in check by a wise and sagacious House of Commons. These demands for fresh expenditure came from more than one quarter of the House, but I must say that the majority of the demands came from the Labour party.
This brings me to an examination of the Amendment, and in doing so I sincerely congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment on their interesting speeches. At first sight, the Amendment seems to be innocuous and even attractive. Like the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith), I looked at it to see whether I could not swallow it; but on looking at it carefully—and it is the duty of those on this Bench to look any horse that comes from that stable very carefully in the mouth—I found certain defects. Let me examine the Amendment. Most people will agree with the central part of it, which says
that the maintenance and extension of the social services are an essential part of the national wellbeing.
I express my personal opinion that we get good value for our present social services. However, when we examine the first and last parts of the Amendment, we see that defects appear. The last part may not appear unreasonable, for it reads:
It is the duty of the State to develop the national resources to the full and utilise them for the common good,
but when it is coupled with the Labour party's programme as they openly urge it, we realise that is means a degree of interference with private initiative, to which we cannot assent. It means, in fact, the direct State management and control of the means of production and distribution.

Mr. K. Griffith: That is not in the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: It is clearly in the Amendment when it is coupled with the Socialist programme. If the hon. Member intends to support the Amendment, I ask him whether he wishes to support the Socialist conception of developing the national resources to the full?

Mr. Griffith: I am supporting the Amendment on the Paper, which I have examined with great care, and so far I have not found one word in the Amendment with which I disagree.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have in mind the declared policy of the Socialist party in regard to their method of developing the national resources. When I turn to the first part of the Amendment, I think hon. Members will find it more difficult to disagree with me. Their assertion there is—
that the burden of national and local expenditure must be judged by the equity of its incidence and by the purposes for which it is imposed.
This implies that the straw would not have broken the camel's back if it had been explained to the camel why it was being put on, or if it had been placed in a different part of its back. Although the purpose of taxation may be good and the distribution fair, yet the burden may be crushing. I ask hon. Members to read the Amendment again, and if they do so, I shall be surprised if they do not agree with my interpretation, which is that hon. Members opposite are asking us to disregard the weight of the burden and to look only at its incidence and the purpose for which it is imposed. To illustrate my remarks, let me give as an example one recent demand for fresh expenditure which has come from the benches opposite. I refer to the Labour party's pensions scheme. I analysed that scheme in some detail on another occasion, and I will not do so again tonight, but I will mention that the effect of the scheme, together with the automatic increase in the costs of the existing scheme, would be to increase the total cost of old age, widows' and orphans' pensions steadily from the present £92,000,000 to £259,000,000 in 40 years time; and the immediate increase which the scheme would bring about is no less than £75,000,000.

Mr. S. O. Davies: You have £62,000,000 m the Unemployment Fund to start off with.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: That increase is the type of increase which I characterise as crushing. I want it clearly to be understood that that is a proposal openly made by the Labour party, and one which I have to resist. It is a good thing that the House should call for economy and that we should discuss a Motion of this kind. The hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley) was in error when he spoke of the direction of the change in recent years as between direct and indirect taxation. Taking the most recent years, the fact is not as he stated. The percentage of total revenue raised by indirect taxation has actually been reduced in the last three years and is less than it was before the War. In 1937, the percentage raised by direct taxation is 60.7 and by indirect taxation 39.3. In 1935, the corresponding figures were 59.57 and 40.43. So, it will be seen that the tendency is in the opposite direction to that indicated by the hon. Member. The comparable figures for 1913 are interesting. The percentage raised by direct taxation in that year was 57.5 and by indirect taxation 42.5. We see that at that time, before the War, when the total burden was less and when we were living under a Free Trade system, the percentage of direct taxation was 57.5 as against 60.7 to-day. Then, the hon. Member for Clay Cross made the rather extravagant assertion that his political friends had been responsible for all the social progress that had been made. I think he has overlooked important Measures passed by Governments of other complexions, notably the Pensions Act of 1925 which was passed by a Conservative Government and which I believe to be, possibly, the biggest Measure of social reform ever placed on the Statute Book.

Mr. Ridley: The party opposite has only approved of social reform when it has been politically dangerous to oppose it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps I may have the attention of the House for what may be to some hon. Members an unpalatable statement. Any social reform on the Statute Book passed by the party opposite was passed only when it became politically inexpedient not to do so.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he was making his speech, but I suggest that


before he makes an assertion of that nature he ought to study the facts. When the Labour party have carried into effect anything that compares with the Measures which have been carried out by other parties in the way of social reform, then they may be able to speak with more authority.
Many valuable contributions have been made by various speakers in support both of the Motion and of the Amendment, but they will forgive me if I do not follow all the points which have been raised, because there are certain statements which I wish to make while I have this opportunity. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in particular will not expect from me either a forecast of the budgetary position for next year or a pronouncement on the value of inflation. To him I would say:
In vain is the net spread in the sight of the bird.
But he will expect a statement on one thing, and I can say that the Government will welcome close and friendly co-operation with the United States on economic matters. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) asked about local authorities' representations to the Ministry of Health. I cannot give him any information about that subject, but I have noted his question carefully and it will be examined.
There are two views about taxation. The one is that it is essentially bad, that it diverts money from normal channels and interferes with saving and enterprise. The other view, held apparently by most hon. Members opposite, is that it is a good thing in itself as a means of redistributing income. I think the truth lies somewhere between those two views. The conception of the functions of the State has completely altered in the last generation and I can best illustrate this change by a comparison of the Gladstone Budget of 1881 with the Chamberlain Budget of 1937. There have been several Gladstonian allusions to-night and another one may be permitted to me, as I represent Gladstone's old constituency. I have on my committee a gentleman who was also on Gladstone's committee during his campaign. That gentleman reminded me that the watchword of those days was "Peace, Retrenchment and Reform," and he claimed that the National Government

have all those virtues. I think the Grand Old Man would have turned in his grave if he could have foreseen the minority Liberal party in the House of Commons opposing a Motion which called on the Government to reduce the taxation burden as and when possible.
Let me illustrate the changes which have taken place. Education in 1881, in England and Scotland, cost a little over £3,000,000, as compared with a total of over £57,000,000 in 1937. There was no provision in 1881 for widows' and old age pensions, which required over £61,000,000 in 1937. Nor was there anything in 1881 to compare with the great total of £82,000,000 provided in the 1937 Estimates for the Ministry of Labour, the Unemployment Assistance Board and the various unemployment assistance schemes. Again, whereas the Local Government Board in 1881 required considerably less than £500,000, the Health Departments to-day account for estimates of over £25,600,000, and the Exchequer in 1937 provides over £54,000,000 in contributions to local revenues. These are interesting figures illustrating the growth of expenditure on these important services. The cause, of course, is this, that there has been a complete change in the conception of the duty of the State, which in those days was called on to provide only those essential services which the individual could not possibly provide for himself.
Interesting though this ancient history may be, the House will perhaps be more concerned with increases in recent years. The House will, I hope, excuse me if I speak mainly on national expenditure. I have not time to speak of local expenditure as well, although we all heard with much interest what the hon. Member opposite said about his local authority's work. I take 1932 as a convenient year of comparison for two reasons. It was the first complete year in which unemployment expenditure was borne entirely on Votes and in which the economies resulting from the report of the May Committee had effect. I hope to show that the increase since then has been almost entirely due to two things—Defence and social services. The 1937 Estimates for Supply Services show an increase over 1932 of £150,000,000, of which £93,900,000 is for Defence. That is excluding the amount which may be


borrowed under the Defence Loans Act. The Civil Services show an increase of £54,800,000 in that period, but one must make an adjustment by discounting £22,500,000 of this increase which is due to the transfer to Votes of the Road Fund Grant, which previously appeared as self-balancing expenditure and was not included in the Supply Estimates.
I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) that there is general recognition of the fact that only small and insignificant reductions could be secured by an overhaul of administrative expenses. The great bulk of the expenditure arises out of decisions of policy which have been specifically approved by Parliament, either by legislation or otherwise. It should be noted that in the first place not only is most of the expenditure statutory in character, but a certain amount of the increase is purely automatic under the provisions of the relevant Statutes. That automatic increase amounts to a considerable sum each year. In this category there falls the provision for old-age and widows' pensions, which in 1937 shows an increase of £10,500,000 over 1932. The Estimates for the Health Departments, which bear the cost of health and housing services, show a total increase over the same period of £3,700,000; the Education Estimates show a corresponding increase of £8,000,000, and expenditure in connection with unemployment, including assistance to Special Areas, shows an increase of £15,000,000, in spite of the fact that there has been a lesser number of unemployed to deal with. The Government have also given assistance to certain industries in the form of subsidies. I would say to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough that he was in error about one subsidy. He said that a feature common to all subsidies was that their heads remained "bloody, but unbowed." The tramp shipping subsidy has gone, and, although he might apply the first epithet to it it would hardly be correct to apply the second. Finally, there is an entirely new item of £4,600,000 in respect of air-raid precautions, which must clearly be regarded as an item of the Defence programme.
These are illustrations of the various items which go to make up the total net increase in Supply expenditure over the last five years. They all represent services which at one time or another Parliament

has specifically approved, and the only authority which can reduce or restrict the expenditure upon them is Parliament itself. I think it is hardly necessary to add that, whatever differing views may be held as to the relative value of most of the various services which I have mentioned, there is always considerable support for each; and, to illustrate the consistent demand for fresh expenditure, I have only to mention the Debate which took place during the earlier part of today, when a demand was made for very heavy expenditure for food storage.
But while the increase in expenditure can be explained, and that I think without difficulty, and while the great bulk of it has been shown to be on services which the House agrees are necessary, it would be wrong to leave the impression that it is viewed with equanimity by the Government. An increase of this magnitude—the figures which I have given tonight show an enormous increase in the past few years—such an increase over a relatively short period cannot but be a source of grave concern, and it is realised that the burden of taxation now resting on the community makes it imperative that no fresh commitments should be entered into unless they are justified on the clearest possible ground of public interest. The Prime Minister in October last, in a speech at Scarborough, said this:
It would be a mere hiding of our heads in the sand to imagine that when we have committed ourselves to the vast programme of expenditure on armaments which has been forced upon us, we can at the same time have just as much to spend on other things as if we lived in a peaceful world, free from all anxiety and care about the intentions and ambitions of other countries.
He went on to say this:
I cannot see any prospect of our being able in the near future to introduce reforms which would add to the present enormous annual expenditure of the country.
These are grave words. I would remind the House of the automatic increases that are bound to take place as a result of our existing commitments on our very valuable social services. The general financial position of the country is much sounder than it was in 1932, and I would be wrong if I gave the impression that there is any cause for alarm. At the same time, it is but right that the House and the country should face the facts squarely.
This Debate gives me the opportunity to say this. The Government are alive to the danger of the effect of high taxes. They are also alive to the very real and universal—I use that word deliberately, because it transcends all party bounds—desire to save on armaments as soon as is humanly possible. Disarmament cannot be unilateral on our part, but it is the firm intention of His Majesty's Government to effect reductions by agreement at the earliest possible time when it can safely be done, and in our foreign policy we shall do all we can to hasten that end. The Government are alive to the necessity of maintaining the sound financial position of the country in the interests of everyone in the community,

not least in the interests of the many millions who derive such immense benefits from the social services. I hope the House will pass this Motion, and I hope it will have wide publicity, because I believe that not only in the House but in the country it will have the effect of bringing a rather more realistic attitude to bear upon what in these days is the heaviest task the Government have to shoulder, namely, the wise stewardship of the nation's finances.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 102.

Division No. 91.]
AYES.
[10.57 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Apsley, Lord
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Patrick, C. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Furness, S. N.
Procter, Major H. A.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Radford, E. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beechman, N. A.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Barnays, R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Grimston, R. V.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bracken, B.
Hambro, A. V.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rowlands, G.


Bull, B. B.
Harbord, A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Burghley, Lord
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Salmon, Sir I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hepworth, J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Scott, Lord William


Channon, H.
Higgs, W. F.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Horsbrugh, Florence
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hunter, T.
Spens, W. P.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Keeling, E. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sutcliffe, H.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Cross, R. H.
Lees-Jones, J.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lindsay, K. M.
Turton, R. H.


Cruddas, Col. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Wakefield, W. W.


Davison, Sir W. H.
McKie, J. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Denville, Alfred
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duckworth. W. R. (Moss Side)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Magnay, T.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Duggan, H. J.
Maitland, A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Eastwood, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Elmley, Viscount
Morgan, R. H.



Emery, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Captain Balfour and Mr. Boothby.


Everard, W. L.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Batey, J.
Cluse, W. S.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Cocks, F. S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Benson, G.
Cove, W. G.


Ammon, C. G.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Daggar, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Burke, W. A.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Barnes, A. J.
Charleton, H. C.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Barr, J.
Chater, D.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)




Day, H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Pritt, D. N.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ritson, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Ede, J. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.


Frankel, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Simpson, F. B.


Gallacher, W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Gardner, B. W.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Graham D. M. (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Grenfell, D. R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maclean, N.
Walkden, A. G.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Watkins, F. C.


Groves, T. E.
Marklew, E.
Watson, W. McL.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Mathers, G.
Westwood, J.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Messer, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Hayday, A.
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Haldsworth, H.
Parker, J.



Hopkin, D.
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. Ridley and Mr. Marshall.


Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. Ellis Smith: rose—

It being after Eleven o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

PROPOSED TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, SOUTH KENSINGTON.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

11.7 p.m.

Sir William Davison: I am rising to draw the attention of the House to a proposal of the Postmaster-General to erect a Telephone Exchange in my constituency on a site which has been specially town-planned since 1932 for use for private residences only, notwithstanding a petition from the local residents which I have presented to the Postmaster-General and the fact that the Kensington Borough Council, which is the local advisory town-planning authority, have unanimously disapproved the proposal.
The site is known as Sidmouth Lodge, in The Boltons, which, as hon. Members who are familiar with South Kensington will know, is one of the most charming, rural, residential spots still left in London. Since 1932 it has been reserved under the Town Planning Acts for use for private residences only. The Post Office urge in excuse that this is the only available site

for a Telephone Exchange in South Kensington; they also urge, notwithstanding the opposition of the residents and of the Kensington Borough Council, that the London County Council, as the town-planning authority for the whole of greater London, has said that they would not raise any objection to the proposal providing that the height of the Exchange is kept below 40 feet.

On the question that the county council were informed that there was no other site available in the immediate vicinity, I would remind the House that this site, Sidmouth Lodge, was purchased by the Post Office as long ago as 1930, and as far as I am aware, the site has lain derelict ever since that date. Prior to its purchase, the Post Office were negotiating for the purchase of another site, in a position which was subsequently town-planned for business purposes, a few hundred yards distant, and they then found that they could obtain Sidmouth Lodge, with its grassy lawns and beautiful gardens at a less price than the price of the closely built-over mews property known as Roland Mews. Therefore their negotiations for the purchase of that site for a telephone exchange broke down, on grounds of expense. They found that the unbuilt-over property, which it is the object of the Town Planning Acts to preserve, was cheaper in price. I have been over the district with the borough engineer of Kensington, and we find that, quite close to the site to which I have referred in Roland Mews, there is another site where there is a large building which is at present empty, and adjoining


it is a large builder's yard on short lease, with, I think, only some five years to run, which of course could easily be acquired. Further, there is no restriction as to keeping the premises down to 40 feet, as there will be if the exchange is to go up in the Boltons.

I submit, therefore, that it is impossible to say that there is no alternative site available in the district. In built-up areas such as Kensington and other London boroughs, there are not many sites which are open spaces and have not been built over, and, therefore, the expense is naturally considerable. It may be said that the Post Office purchased this site in 1930, and it was not until 1932 that this town planning Order was made. That is true, but the other residents in the Boltons also suffer under the same disability. Several of them have applied, both to the local authority in Kensington and to the London County Council, for leave to turn their private houses into, in one or two cases, nursing homes, and in another case into flats; and only last week an inquiry was held in Kensington by a representative of the Ministry of Health with regard to the refusal of the London County Council to set aside the provisions of the Town Planning Act in connection with an application, from the resident in a house very similar to Sid-mouth Lodge in the Boltons, for permission to convert his house into three flats. There was no proposal to pull the house down or to build over the lawns and garden, but simply to re-plan the house into three flats instead of one private residence.

Counsel were heard on behalf of the London County Council and on behalf of the Kensington Borough Council, as well as on behalf of the residents in the Boltons, urging that the London County Council's decision should be supported and that no variation in the town planning provisions should be made. It is a very much less variation in the proposals of the Town Planning Act that one house situated in these gardens, with flower beds all round it, should be converted internally into three flats, than that one of these old stucco, late Georgian or early Victorian houses should be pulled down and a new red-brick factory building should be built, not only in its place, but over a large part of the garden as well, as is proposed by the Post Office.

I am advised to-day from the town hall that practically the only argument used against the London County Council and the Kensington Borough Council at the recent inquiry was that the Post Office had purchased a similar house, Sidmouth Lodge in the Boltons, and proposed to use it for business purposes, namely, the erection of a telephone exchange. It shows how prejudicial a bad example may be, even though it be pleaded that the matter is but a small one.

Twice during the past year the House of Commons has unanimously passed resolutions demanding the preservation of amenities and the protection of rural surroundings in cities and towns, and in February last the representative of the Minister of Health said that, if representations were made to that Ministry, the Member in question could always rely on the support of the Ministry to preserve those amenities, whether in town or in the country. Here we have again a Government Department, this time the Post Office, asking that its specially favoured position of not being subject to the Town Planning Acts should be recognised, and that it should be allowed to do something that the ordinary individual would not be allowed to do. I had intended to suggest to the House that it was impossible to believe that Harrods or Barkers would be allowed to take Sidmouth Lodge and have a furniture store there, but a much stronger argument has turned up in the last few days as I have already stated in that the London County Council and the Kensington Borough Council and the residents are united in opposing the conversion of a house into three flats. Surely the erection of a telephone exchange of red brick-is much worse.

To sum up, the Kensington Borough Council, who are the advisory local town planning authority, and are familiar with the district and the wishes of the inhabitants, have unanimously objected to the proposal. I have presented a petition from, I think, all the inhabitants of The Boltons, except two, who are abroad. The London County Council, the town planning authority for Greater London, who naturally do not know so much about the particular district as the Kensington Borough Council, were only induced to agree to the proposals of the Post Office on the assurance that a telephone exchange was a necessity in the


district, and that no other site could be obtained. I think I have shown that there is another site, and that it is not unsuitable, because it adjoins the site which the Post Office proposed to acquire in 1930, before they found that they could obtain a practically open space at a cheaper price.

The London Society, whose function is to preserve London amenities, had passed a resolution, which was conveyed to the Postmaster-General, protesting against a Government Department taking advantage of its position to contravene the zoning Section of the Town Planning Act, by erecting a telephone exchange, which cannot be described as other than a commercial building—in gardens which are town-planned for private residences only. I have only to add that the arguments of cheapness and convenience are the arguments that are used all through the country by the vandals who put up villas and factories along our new arterial highways, with the result that many of those roads are now little better than streets. Sometimes with the leave of the local authority, and sometimes without, they have erected buildings up to the grass verge of these roadways. We have few enough open spaces in London. Why should the Post Office, in order to save a few pounds, put down a telephone exchange in these gardens, when a commercial site which, a few years ago they thought was suitable, is available and the feelings of the inhabitants will not be outraged?

11.19 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): First, I should like to point out that a telephone exchange in Kensington is an absolute necessity. The inhabitants of the hon. Member's constituency are constantly clamouring to go on to the telephone system, and it is the duty of my Department to supply the need. We have worked that district from a telephone exchange in a very artistic part of London, Chelsea, where we erected a building which has met with the approval of the artists who reside in that neighbourhood. But the exchange is now far too small, and, to provide the necessary service for the people of Kensington, it is necessary that we should have the exchange in the centre of that district. We requested the Office of Works to look out for a site, and they

examined, not only the Sidmouth Lodge site, but many others to which reference has been made by my hon. Friend tonight. When it was decided that the Sidmouth Lodge site was the best for the purpose because of the fact that it was central and we could purchase it without this great Department of ours being plundered, we did not take advantage of the position of a Department of State and not seek proper permission, but we approached the town planning authority, which is the London County Council. This is our normal practice. We never hide behind the fact that we have certain privileges, but we proceed in the ordinary way in which business concerns would proceed in order to get permission from the people responsible.

Mr. Kelly: I hope that you are going to continue that practice.

Sir W. Womersley: We are, and that is the policy of His Majesty's Government, of the Postmaster-General, and of myself. In accordance with our normal practice, we consulted the London County Council, and we were informed that they consulted in turn the Kensington Borough Council. Whether the Kensington Council gave permission or not, I do not know.

Sir W. Davison: They did not.

Sir W. Womersley: All that I know is that the London County Council assured us that we should have permission to erect a building such as we proposed on this site, provided we did not make it more than 40 feet high. The reason for that I will explain in a moment. I went down myself to view this site. I had heard a good deal about it from my hon. Friend, and I considered that the right and most practical thing to do was to see it for myself. I arrived at the Boltons. I looked round, and I was not at all struck by this Georgian-stucco type of building. The plans had been prepared by the Office of Works for a magnificent, attractive and certainly, in my opinion, a far better type of building than I could find at the Boltons. When I examined the place, I discovered that the old Boltons building had fallen into disrepair. As to the lawns, I found that their beauty had departed. There are trees surrounding the whole of the site, and we are not going to remove them. They are to remain.

Mr. Kelly: And screen the building.

Sir W. Womersley: They will help to screen the building all right. The building will not occupy the whole of the site by any means. There will be a good deal of ground which will be properly laid out, and we are going to give Kensington a very nice addition to their public parks, if they have any at all. [Interruption.] That is an Americanism, but it is all right.
This is to be an automatic exchange. There will be no noise, I can assure my hon. Friend, and we are not using it as an engineering depot at all. Our staff who have to deal with repairs and so on will not be centred in this building, and the only workmen who will pass along and perhaps cause a little disturbance to the peace of mind of residents in The Boltons will be a few engineers, quite gentlemanly fellows, who will only come to attend to the automatic apparatus. I think it is just as well to inform my hon. Friend of what my investigations have been concerning the various sites. He said we ought to have bought Roland's Mews. This site was put forward for the consideration of my Department in 1930. The matter was not proceeded with further because of certain disadvantages. First, we were asked £60,000 for possession. The site is not one easy of access, and it is very near the boundary of the Kensington telephone area. We should have to spend an additional £3,500 annually, because of the out of centre position in which the exchange would have to be built on the site of Roland's Mews.
We are a Government Department, it is true, and it is also true that Government Departments are supposed to be expensive and extravagant. It has been suggested, too, that the Post Office occasionally makes a little profit. We had to consider this matter from three points of view: first, the capital cost, then the cost of maintenance, and thirdly, convenience, in order that we could give a proper service to the people we are serving. The hon. Member mentioned Leslie's builder's yard, which is property at the other end of Roland's Mews. That site is unsuitable in shape and insufficient in size, unless we incorporate several houses fronting on to Priory Road. I hope the hon. Member does not suggest that we should take away from Kensington several houses fronting on to that road and dispossess

tenants who, I am sure, are good supporters of my hon. Friend.

Sir W. Davison: There is a large derelict building immediately adjoining the builder's yard; something like a chapel.

Sir W. Womersley: My information is that the people do not want to sell that. Moreover, this site, like the other site mentioned by the hon. Member is on the edge of the telephone area, and the excess cost would be £5,600; not merely the first cost but an annual cost, which the Postmaster-General and myself feel is not justified. The site is not at all suitable.
Mention was made by my hon. Friend of the London Society, which had sent a letter to the Postmaster-General stating that to erect a building on this particular site would be a contravention of the town planning proposals of the Ministry of Health. We have been in communication with the Ministry of Health, their Town and Country Planning Division, and they say that there is no contravention of the zoning clause involved in this proposal. That is a clear and definite reply to the London Society.

Sir W. Davison: These places are zoned for private residences only, and to put up a telephone exchange there must be a contravention of the zoning plan.

Sir W. Womersley: I suggest that my hon. Friend should argue this out with the Minister of Health and then with the London County Council, who have authority to decide whether it is a contravention of the Town Planning Acts. We say that it is not. I examined the site carefully myself, spent a great deal of time on it, and I found that there was a business premises in the Boltons; and I have no doubt that other business premises will come along in due time. While I have every sympathy with the hon. Member's idea of keeping part of Kensington truly rural we cannot keep back the march of progress. The people of Kensington want telephones. My Department has to supply them, and in spite of the hon. Member who so worthily represents that constituency, they are going to have them.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.